Minutes of the August 12, 2019 DEP hearing to take public comments on the proposed Synagro biosolids factory whimsically known as Slate Belt Heat Recovery Center

Synagro is proposing to locate a 400-ton per day crap bakery in Plainfield Township, Northampton County, PA, on land owned by Waste Management.  The project is misadvertised as "green", with waste heat from the adjacent Green Knight Energy Center used for 84% of the energy needed (reducing to zero once the landfill closes in 2030, at which time a switch to 100% natural gas will occur).  This will be within 10 feet of the boundary of a quarry that was once at least 300 feet  deep, whish was partially filled 10-15 years ago.  DEP's department of mining approved this with likely no concern for water quality.  This quarry, which is technically a pond and by DEP permit a sedimentation basin, is a key point of contention for this project.  All of the loading and unloading of sludge will be within crapping distance of the pond, in addition to trucks loaded with wastewater that must be removed since the lot is too small to process it onsite.

On August 12, a second DEP hearing was held to take public comments on the draft NPDES and draft Air Quality permits.  (note:  written comments may be submitted via email until tomorrow Monday at 4:00PM - see the right margin for details of where to send - let DEP know how you feel about this ill-conceived proposal)

Audience members were spared the dog and pony show presentation that occurred at the November hearing, but Waste Management, Green Knight and Synagro each felt compelled to make appearances at the podium, to deliver advertising speeches.  Each time, a small handful (perhaps 4 or 5) people clapped - these people were other representatives of the same group, not concerned citizens.  Perhaps the intent was to get the attention of the press.  Here are unofficial minutes, as recorded by one observer:

Minutes of August 12, 2019 DEP hearing

Gail Weber – citizen

 DEP has to update its regulations so that all contaminants from Synagro are filtered out of discharges to groundwater.  This plant will generate many toxins, some known but many not.  Not only to protect humans, but all living things including insects and aquatic life.

(name not known) EarthRes Air Quality engineer– We considered worst case emissions in our application to DEP, and in typical operation the alternate fuel sources of landfill gas and natural gas will not be used.  (This is untrue – Synagro has stated the amount of waste heat from Green Knight is insufficient to run their drying equipment.  Waste heat will supply 84% of the energy used prior to teh landfill closing.  This woman did not get the memo.)

(Editor's note: the complete testimony of Plainfield Township's five consultants, who are listed immediately below, is available here)

Gail Braden – Environmental Consultant for Plainfield Township – Air, water and waste. Synagro’s plan must meet exceptional conditions to earn the township’s support.  Synagro and DEP must consider exceptional quality of life standards, beyond regulatory minimums.  All contingencies must be considered – what happens if the power fails, heavy precipitation.  Routine audits should be performed and Synagro should be a good corporate neighbor.  Any issues should be resolved as soon as possible.  Conduct business like you live outside the fence.

Mike Brunamonti - Environmental Consultant for Plainfield Township

The revised NPDES permit application submitted to PA DEP on July 1, 2019 contains an Enhanced NPDES Monitoring Plan, but not the Basin #2 Monitoring Plan or Groundwater Monitoring Plan that are mentioned in the DEP’s NPDES Fact Sheet.  The Fact Sheet mentions these two Plans will be included in the Waste Management Permit.  Stormwater associated with industrial activities will be discharged to an abandoned quarry connected with groundwater, and therefore the Clean Water Program must consider groundwater protection when reviewing the NPDES permit application.  Basin #2 water quality monitoring and groundwater quality monitoring should be included in the NPDES permit.  If DEP were to defer Basin #2 water quality and groundwater quality to the Waste Management Permit, then DEP should issue a draft Waste Management Permit before talking any further action on the NPDES permit application.

Mr. Brunamonti recommended several testing intervals for monitoring VOC’s and other contaminants in outfalls to Basin #2, the Waltz Creek, and a tributary to the Little Bushkill Creek.  See here and scroll down the page.  Recommendations of these intervals assumes that DEP incorporates Basin #2 and ground water monitoring into the NPDES permit, as recommended above.

Routine inspections should be weekly, not semi-annually as stated in the permit.  At least once a quarter, the routine inspection should occur during a storm runoff event – not once per year.  A summary report should be submitted to DEP and Plainfield Township after the first year of operation, containing a summary of monitoring data and any exceedances of permit limits and corrective actions taken.

Plainfield Township and its consultants believes a Chapter 105 permit is required in order to modify Basin #2.

Jack Embick – Environmental Solicitor for Plainfield Township

The Zoning and Planning process is not complete, so final action on DEP permits should not take place.  DEP has encouraged Plainfield Township to approve Synagro’s land development plan; this is inappropriate.  IF DEP wishes to comment on (read: interfere) with the township’s process, it should put its comments in writing so the planning commission, officials and public can consider them – just as we are doing at this hearing.

The township has requested that the applicant submit an environmental impact study, which the applicant has refused to do.  Both the township and DEP would benefit from such a study, and we encourage DEP to support this request.  The township believes that an individual permit should be required for facilities such as this; the township has identified several areas in this proposal that need improvement. A general permit is not appropriate.  (note that because an individual permit was not required, a harms and benefits analysis is not required by DEP).

It is not apparent that DEP has considered the impacts of this proposal as a whole, given the segregated approach to permitting (ie Waste Management, NPDES, Air Quality).  The DEP must not consider the proposed permits in this piecemeal fashion.

The DEP has not responded to public comments submitted at the DEP hearing on November 7, 2018, 9 months ago.  The DEP must communicate in a more timely manner about the project and its proposed advantages and disadvantages.  (eg A general permit will allow DEP to more easily permit similar plants elsewhere in PA – DEP has not commented on this)

The township is unaware that the required engineering was done prior to issuing a Chapter 105 waiver to previously partially fill the pond.  A Chapter 105 permit should be required, because the water in this pond is directly connected with groundwater and Waters of the Commonwealth.

Trudy Johnston – biosolids/Nuisance Mitigation Control Plan consultant for Plainfield Township

Incoming biosolids may or may not be stabilized – they could be digested or undigested.  There is a high probability incoming sludge will be odorous.  The particle size in emissions may become greater as the facility ages.  The Nuisance Mitigation Control Plan should be adopted into the Air Quality permit.

Regarding odors from trucks, what standard(s) does DEP use?  Definitions should be added so that complaints may be addressed.  Odors and particulates, regardless of the source (ie stack, roads, trucks, etc) must be regulated.

Jason Smith – wetlands consultant for Plainfield Township

Pre-startup sampling should be required as part of the NPDES permit for the outfalls and pond itself (note that due to the piecemeal permitting process – Brunamonti above – this is not currently the case).  There currently is no background data for the pond water quality or surrounding groundwater, which are required to assess future possible impacts.  The township has proposed additional surface and groundwater monitoring and these should be included in the NPDES permit.

A previously unidentified wetland has been observed along Waltz Creek within 300 feet of propose project activity.  This area could potentially support bog turtles, and the applicant should conduct a study (applicant has declined to do so).

The pond was not designed, constructed or maintained as a Chapter 102-compliant stormwater or detention basin.  Therefore the DEP should review the proposed activities under Chapter 105.  Granting a waiver of the 105 permit could result in harm to the health, safety and welfare of the public.

Tracy Carluccio – Deputy Director of Delaware Riverkeeper Network

This is a high risk project on an undersized lot.  3500 citizens will not be able to escape water and air pollutants.  The monitoring proposed in the draft NPDES permit is weak and ineffective, promoting a cover-up by commingling runoff from three different sources (ie landfill, gas to electricity plant, Synagro).  The groundwater is connected with creeks designated for special protection under the regulations.  Despite increased monitoring being proposed, there are many pollutants found in sludge and wastewater that are not included in the permit.

Why isn’t DEP also demanding a geologic analysis, as the township has, since the pond directly infiltrates to groundwater?  The groundwater and surface drains on the access road connect with the streams, carrying pollutants that will harm the creeks and life in them.  Synagro has not done the required anti-degradation analysis (Sec 93.4c).

The Rube Goldberg plan is to haul away wastewater using the same trucks that deliver the sludge, to an as-yet unidentified disposal facility.  This is caused by poor site selection, wherein it is impossible to meet the discharge standards for the creeks.  There is great potential for spills and accidents that will contaminate the creeks, given the maneuvering and tight quarters of the site.

The air quality plan will allow hazardous air pollutants to be emitted, and these will plaque the residents of Pen Argyl.  Pen Argyl is ground zero for the pollutants and odors that will be released from the plant and the trucks that support it.  This includes fires and explosions, which have occurred as recently as August 2, 2019 (Explosion at Stamford CT plant).  Permit violations, accidents and health and safety issues are to be expected with Synagro.

The proposed plant is the wrong project in the wrong place, and DEP has not provided the required protection of our water and air, and thus both permits must be denied.

Steve Demaris – citizen

Reported that EPA official/whistlebower William Sanjour stated that he was directed to create misleading public documents, and to not label sewage sludge as hazardous matter.  Sanjour was directed to not use the normal processes to identify hazardous material.  The public is not being protected from heavy metals found in sludge.  EPA fabricated the facts, and as a result the legality of DEP permits is in question.

Russell Zerbo – Clean Air Council, a PA and DE public health group

Synagro does not acknowledge in its application that 25% of the citizens who live in the area of the plant are below the poverty line, and this plant should be considered a major source of emissions.  Some of the most significant emissions will be from truck traffic.  Synagro is relying on dust control from Waste Management’s operations, yet it states that compliance of Waste Management to its permits is irrelevant.  Synagro’s compliance will in fact depend on the compliance of its neighbors.  Synagro’s Camden facility had a violation this year.Cumulative impacts of the operations near this site (ie: landfill, energy center, Synagro plant) must be considered.  Road emissions will be significant.

Bob Cornman – Green Knight Synagro spokesperson

Green Knight benefits three communities, Wind Gap, Pen Argyl, Plainfield Township (all three oppose the proposed project -  two have written opposition, the third can not legally oppose it).  Our biggest project is a land reclamation (but this project has the greatest potential for negatively affecting the community).  Synagro is expected to generate between $100,000 and $200,000 income (Green Knight Treasurer Peter Albanese has stated it is up to $100,00 maximum).

Scott Perin – employee of Waste Management
Public service announcement for Waste Management.  Mr. Perin apparently did not understand the purpose of the hearing.

Nolin Perin – citizen whose father founded the landfill, father of Scott Perin

We have to take care of our own problem and get rid of this sludge (this sludge is not “ours” and not "our problem" – it is from NJ, CT and NY, who have more strict regulations than PA)
As pertains to concerns about water, I would not mind living downstream of this plant. (to see thousands of cubic yards of hazardous waste that Mr. Perin stockpiled at the base of the Blue Mountain, where the headwaters of creeks are, click here)

Luther Bond – citizen

I work with waste – I know what is in this stuff, and it isn’t good for the environment.  Synagro has refused to do a study that would show its effects.  We need to consider fish, water life and mammals.  Synagro’s trucks are not closed – they are tarped, which will not control odors.  The risk of a spill is very high.  When sludge is delivered, there is no way to prevent material from becoming airborne.

Pat Sutter – citizen

I live along Route 512, and the garbage truck smell very bad one block away, travelling in either direction.  With this sludge, it will be worse.

Howard Klein – citizen

The question I am concerned about in addition to Synagro doing monitoring, is who will be monitoring Synagro?  What is in this sludge – every batch will be different.  You cook your turkey longer than Synagro will be heating this sludge.

Peter Layman – Solicitor for Pen Argyl

I want to focus on the Air Quality permit.  It is premature to issue a draft permit without a completed Nuisance Mitigation Control Plan.

Don Moore – citizen

For well over a year the planning commission has requested a hydrogeologic study of the pond to the creeks, and Synagro has refused.  In a lawsuit for DEP to produce proof that engineering was done to justify a Chapter 105 waiver years ago, instead of producing the documents DEP withdrew its intent to issue another waiver for Synagro.  Synagro has offered multiple estimates of the depth of the pond – it has no idea what is going on under the surface, and in a recent meeting stated it does not know what percentage of water from the pond goes to one creek versus the other.  A DEP employee told me that DEP also has no idea what is going on under the surface of the water.  No one knows.

On May 23^rd, Plainfield Township consultants arrived to attend a 11:00AM on-site meeting with Syangro, DEP, Waste Management and the county Conservation District to discuss deficiencies with Basin #2.  Plainfield reps were made to wait in a room until 11:20AM, at which time they were allowed to join the meeting – which had started at 10:00AM.  Deficiencies of Basin #2 were on the 10:00AM agenda, but not the 11:00AM agenda.  Several announcements were made once the township was in attendance, such as a Chapter 105 waiver would again be issued.  What science is this based on?  Mr. Bellas stated at the November 2018 hearing that he was unaware of geologic testing that ever been done on the pond.  There was no testing done prior to or following the partial filling years ago, so no one knows if there was an effect of that or not.

Synagro has announced that it will be petitioning reduced or eliminating monitoring after a year or two, but planners believe it should be forever, never reduced.  Monitoring will not be preventative.  Months to discover a problem, months to re-test, possibly months more of non-compliance with possibly fines that are or are never paid.  Synagro’s Waterbury CT plant was successfully sued in 2016 for failure to implement mercury emissions controls.  Synagro says it will pump the pond of it becomes contaminated.  This won’t cleanse groundwater.

The general permit Synagro applied for could be used across PA for the beneficial use of biosolids as a fuel.  Peter Albanese of Green Knight has stated “DEP wants more of these facilities”.  DEP should be more concerned about our water quality than implementing what it sees as a beneficial use across the state.

By Peter Albanese’s number, the income to Green Knight will be 1/9 on a per ton basis than another community with a Synagro plant.  By Mr. Cornman’s, it is still less than 1/4 maximum.

The community is totally against this proposal.  Wind Gap, Pen Argyl, Upper Mt Bethel and Lower Mt Bethel have all written letters of objection.  Nolan Perin is the single citizen at any meeting or hearing in almost three years who has spoken in favor of it. Lisa Perin, his niece, has said how negative it would be for the community.  It is common sense that this is the wrong place for such a facility.  DEP should reject the permits.

Millie Beahn – citizen

I know this community, I have lived here all my life.  This plant will change this community.  It should be placed somewhere else – not so close to residents.

Justin Huratiak – citizen

We must consider the cumulative impact of this plant.  Consider that the landfill has been able to control odors and its impact on the community, and now we are going to add this?  It will make things even worse.

David Flyte – citizen

I want to be able to sleep with my windows open.  Have picnics and enjoy my property.  My property value will sink if this plant is here.  The odors from it will add to the landfill.