Dear Lucy,
TDEC does not use the word violations in the Sept 24 letter to Mike Rozar. Instead it says things like this: “The following observations, comments, and recommendations are offered for your consideration.” TDEC should go ahead and call it what it is, violations. They have a mountain of information in Columbia. A mountain of paper! While their documentation is amazing, it seems to no avail. There seems to be almost no consequence, no matter what.
To me, these look like violations. Call it a deviation from the suggested guidelines if you must…
1. Item 3a of the letter to Mr. Rozar says that “the bio solids are not to be applied if the site is flooded, frozen, or during a precipitation event.” Then it goes on to say that there are numerous areas of “severe rutting”. (These are easily seen on Google Earth or Google maps.) In addition, an early document about the suitability of the site makes the conclusion that “sludge spreading on this site will be limited to dry months due to poor drainage typical of river bottom land.” Are the three foot deep ruts not evidence of violation?
2. The letter dated Sept 24 does say in item 7 that “there were no sinkholes noted in our visit.” That is a glaring mistake. Chad Augustin, the biologist from from Water Pollution Control at the Columbia Field Office, sent Mr. Odette a 7 page report nine days earlier, on Sept 13, 2010. In the communication he attached pictures of the site and clearly labeled the sinkholes. Another document, dated January 6, 1997, states that the property has approximately six sink holes. A third letter dated January 27, 1997, which is a notice of violation sent to John Holcomb, the then manager of Water and Sewer, stated that “It appeared that the required setbacks from the property boundaries, the Elk River, the sink holes, and the public road had been observed.”
3. Item 13 in the letter to Mr. Rozar says that FPU should update the site map to show all the buffers mentioned above. I do not know that FPU has ever created a map showing the buffers. According to Mr. Augustin, “the buffer zone for spreading bio solids is not in any STP’s permit.” That is a violation.
4. Item 6 in the letter to Mr. Rozar says that bio solids may not be applied within 1000 feet of a place of assembly. The soccer families and players have been well within 1000 feet of the dumping, as has the doctor’s office, for years. That is a violation.
5. The site had underground tile pipes that discharged into a tributary. FPU has been removing the pipe this week because of the letter. Why would they be going to all of that expense if this were not a violation?
6. Why is FPU having to hire a geologist to establish the exact location of the wetlands on the property? Because nobody ever made them do it before. Go figure.
