Giles Flyash Meeting, October 2, 2007
From BurningBook
Contents |
Doug Turner - douglasjturner@earthlink.net
- Information on the project
- Earthen berm dam to be constructed
- Flyash will be stacked 24 feet above the berm
- There will NOT be a clay liner, the clay is "in the berm"
- Flyash will be placed layer by layer dampened and compacted
- The berm will close in the flyash in on 3 sides, one bounded by 460
- 2 sediment ponds will be put in place to catch excess water
- 24 inches of topsoil will be put over flyash and seeded when finished
- Planning commission did not warn the citizens about this project
- Citizens want early warning of such projects in the future
The following updated chronology of the Cumberland Park project was added November 9, 2007:
Cumberland Park Project
The Executive Director for the Giles County Partnership for Excellence (GCPE), Howard Spencer, approached Appalachian Electric Power Glen Lyn Plant (APCO) Manager, Brad Jones, in late 2005 or early 2006 with a proposal to place fly ash from the Glen Lyn plant on a parcel of property (approximately 13 acres) being considered for purchase by the GCPE. The property is located just outside of the Town of Narrows’ most southeastern boundary adjacent to the New River and is legally located in the County of Giles.
Brad Jones of APCO agreed to fund an engineering and environmental study of the proposed project using contracted services of Draper Aden and Schnabel Engineering. This initial study was started in early 2006 and completed in August 2006.
GCPE purchased the proposed site June 2006 for $100,000 from the owners, a group of Celanese employees who had purchased the land with the intent of eventually developing it as a recreational area for Celanese employees.
APCO parent company American Electric Power (AEP) became involved with the project at the corporate level at some unknown point in time, which appears to have been late 2006 or early 2007. This is the point in time where factual information has been difficult to ascertain. It is believed that AEP has funded site preparation and will be funding transport and placement of the various ash from their Glen Lyn plant to the Cumberland Park site.
GCPE has advertised their 501)c)3 participation in this project as being a money-maker that will donate all profits to Giles County public schools (Giles County Technology Center). GCPE has publicly stated that the sale of the developed site as commercial or industrial property will generate the anticipated profits. However, it is believed that GCPE will profit from each truck load of ash that is transported from the Glen Lyn plant to Cumberland Park. If this is accurate information, the GCPE could realize millions of dollars in profit.
The Giles County Board of Supervisors, of which Howard Spencer is the chairman, has contended that they didn’t know about this project until it was made public late July 2006. This is a “he said, she said” issue and probably isn’t pertinent in a legal sense but certainly is in a public servant sense. The primary point in regard to whether elected and employed county officials did or didn’t know about the project has to do with the fact that the county didn’t have any local zoning ordinances in place which addressed the intent of this project. Therefore, it was the legal opinion of the county attorney, Richard Chidester, that the county had no legal way of stopping the project. He elaborated that even if the county had a zoning ordinance in place to prohibit such a project, it wouldn’t have withstood a legal challenge because it couldn’t be more restrictive than the code of Virginia, or Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) requirements.
The current status of the project is that all applications and permits have apparently been processed, approved, and issued. The most recent and allegedly final approval was issued by DEQ October 25, 2007. The initial site clearing has been completed with exception of debris removal.
The GCPE held a public meeting November 8 at Narrows High School to provide presentations in support of their project. Presentations by opponents of the project were not allowed. Howard Spencer told the public that questions would be allowed but public questions posed directly to the GCPE were either totally ignored, or Howard Spencer attempted to avoid providing concise to the point responses to the questions. Many technical and scientific questions created an atmosphere of reluctance to respond or attempts to sidestep the question, within the ranks of the experts recruited by the GCPE. Howard Spencer treated questions directed to the GCPE with abrasiveness and contempt that anyone would feel the need to pose such questions. His “air” of being above the citizens was made all the more obvious by his actions at this meeting. He left the auditorium for much of the meeting and wasn’t present when many questions requiring his response were posed. Questions such as “why not place a liner beneath the fly ash for protection?” were totally ignored by Howard Spencer, as were questions pertaining to drilling holes for periodic groundwater testing.
The Giles County Board of Supervisors has allegedly requested the GCPE to delay placement of ash on the site until after the Board of Supervisors meeting scheduled November 20, 2007. It is unknown as to what, if anything, having to do with the Cumberland Park project will be proposed by the county supervisors at this meeting.
Dr. William A. Hopkins - Associate Professor at Virginia Tech
- DEQ says there will be more contributed to the site than flyash, CCB is all coal waste
- Elements that are concentrated by coal combustion depend on the parent mineral and the type of processing
- Landfill is the safest type of treatment, but contact with the water table is bad.
- Minefills are a new process where they fill old mine sites and it is up and coming, but it is also dangerous because of water contact
- Recycle/reuse - longboard and concrete are possible uses for flyash
- The EPA has 24 reported cases of damages concerning flyash, they all involve water
- Belews Lake, NC - water contaminated by Selenium
- All but one fish species were killed
- Selenium effects growth, reproduction, etc.
- Maternal transfer of contaminants to offspring: Selenium
- Frogs that inhabit area with Se will pass it on to their babies.
- 20% reduction in egg viability
- 55% increase in malformation of tadpoles
- Spinal abnormalities are very common due to Se
- Frogs that inhabit area with Se will pass it on to their babies.
- Take home message: when contaminants are placed in a water environment, very bad things can happen
- 4 Factors that increase Risk:
- Permeability of underlying substrate (Find out about this for the site)
- if permeable and when water comes in contact with the waste, there will be leaching
- Subsurface hydrology
- Improper cover
- need protection from weathering and leaching
- Proximity to drinking water and aquatic habitat
- Permeability of underlying substrate (Find out about this for the site)
- Look at the National Academy of Sciences: www.nap.edu - search for coal combustion residues
- Federal Register - www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html - EPA Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2006-0796
- CCW's in flood-plain as fill material is not the intended spirit of the "beneficial" use
- if there are risks associated with it, it cannot be beneficial
- because its legal doesn't mean its ethical, responsible, or safe
- CCWs are not natural, even if they were, everything thats natural is NOT safe
- Elements: Arsenic, selenium, and cadmium
- Summary points from Hopkins:
- Contact with water is very bad
- We need more information about the site itself: hydrology, design details, engineers plans
- When you burn coal, you concentrate the elements that do not burn
- There are options for disposa;, but it depends on the actual composition of the waste
- Hopkins will send a summary of recommendations from the academy
Barbara Diess - Pennsylvania
- Shows pictures along creekside of area hit by flyash flood
- Describes loud sound of like water flowing, creek and street covered
- Brought down branches/, trees, garbage cans
- Logs hit neighbors two car garage
- Truck brought out into the street by force
- Mucky substance left after the flood subsided
- Snow plow was needed to clear street of flyash
- Flyash heavy like cement when wet
- Light and blows in the wind easily when wet - contaminant
- Like cement when frozen
- Penn. DEP told people to clean up the flyash and get it out of the way
- Results for arsenic in flyash come back very high
- Scientists met with citizens to discuss Penn. DEP's suggestion
- Cautioned of inhalation risk - lots of safety precautions
- Dust entered homes, vehicles, mailboxes, etc. anyways
- Tests for arsenic - 268 ppm and very fine particulates
- Residents sick with flu-like symptoms
- Children sick, bad asthma
- Flyash deposited about 50 years ago
- Supported with no berm
- Citizens thought it was just a pasture
- Flyash came down a gorge and through their community
- Continued to drinking source for many people in Pittsburgh
- Creek ran black for a while
- DEP finally found enough money to dig channel sending flyash away from community
- DEP hauled about 1200 tons of flyash away from the park
- DEP hosed flyash into the creek and tried to get citizens to sign rights away after cleanup
- Health assessment - potential public health hazard - recommendation: removal of flyash, soil sampling, and patrolling, monitoring, or removal of the community
- DEP tried to wet and remove flyash - dried quickly and leaked from trucks as left
- Many other communities are having problems with flyash
George Santucci - National Committee for the New River
- Similar project: Grayson county prison attempt at the New River
- It's hard to judge a project on misinformation and lack of information
- It's good to ask question, get involved as a community, learn about what's happening
- There's probably a much more suitable place for flyash than here
- Contact with water is a bad idea and putting the project in a floodplain is a bad idea
- Earthen berm with a clay base
- The river needs its floodplan - 100 year floods HAPPEN
- Landowners accross the river will be greatly impacted
- Human impacts are sucking the life out of our Earth
- Sequential impacts will result in the total destruction of an ecosystem
- We cannot allow the impacts to build up
- The residents of Blue Stone Lake would be greatly impacted if the berm fails
- Giles County supports the New River in a serious way
- Question the regulatory agencies, question your local authorities, make yourself heard, this is a democracy
Karita Knisely - Resident of Pulaski County
- Thanks citizens for having the forum
- Wants to address the citizens about what scientific data to collect
- Explains she is an ordinary citizen and she has common sense, never underestimate yours
- When a park ranger on the New River Trail in 1993, there was a proposal made to accept APCO's waste ash for 10 years to spread it on the trail 10 ft wide 12 inches thick
- Fly ash bucket brought in to descibe what flyash is, she was shown bottom ash
- Looked like black baby powder, so fine she never felt the ash when pressed hand into bucket
- They experimented with the ash while she was a park ranger
- DEQ came out to inspect the ash, but she was only shown what they wanted her to see
- She used to drive over it and a big thick cloud of black smoke trailed her
- Shortly after, she began to oppose the flyash
- Called the DEQ to come back
- Accuses politicians of not regulating correctly
- Its up to citizens to be responsible, not paid officials because they fail
- says beneficial use was a loophole
- Bottom ash was to be use to "repair" the trail and "restore the historic authenticity of the trail"
- in reality the letter constituted disposal
- DEQ learned of these wrongs and terminated the project immediately
- appeals were filed to get the project re-approved
- Karita sent samples to professionals who conducted a $2000 test for free
- The tests were overwhelming and worked to halt the project
- The New River Trail - Published file about this case study
- Storm-water commingled with coal ash would have a detrimental effect to aquatic life
- The freshwater flea was killed in tests of the flyash which effects the rest of the food chain
- Freshwater flea the lowest on teh food chain
- AEP will try to tell you this is safe
- largest polluter of mercury and CO2 in the US
- Violations:
- 2001 - IRS wins suit against for making illegal tax deductions
- Purchased entire village in Ohio to deal with pollution
- Every body of water near AEP plants under heavy mercury levels
- Bush/Cheney election funded by AEP
- Spent over $7 million on lobbying efforts
- AEP turned in by internal employee (Air Quality Engineer) for burning a hazardous chemical waste in a plant in Texas deliberately and including the ash from their burning into a fill site for flyash
- Potential lawsuits for burning hazardous waste material
- Listed in the top 50 most polluting power plants in the US
- Ohio AEP reached an agreement with EPA for violation over landfills - placed coal ash byproduct 20,000 tons over the EPA limits - AEP supposed to dispose of waste of modify facility to accommodate
- Violated clean air act by failing to install required pollution controls for sulphur dioxides - emissions have more than doubled since they modified the plant
- Giles County partnership for excellence is funded by AEP
- Cumberland Park project has alternatives - other people use different options
- Some people think the site is small enough not to be a problem
- Precedence is set with a project like this - other projects are easier to get if things like this go over easy
- Transportation of the flyash is dangerous
- Ask yourself "Have you ever known anything man-made that did not fail?"
Questions
Long talk about the state of the New River noting that it was declared a National Heritage River, asks what of hydrologic problems will happen?
- For environmental degradation to occur, you do not have to have a floow, normal hydraulic activity can cause problems
Why was this location chosen and were there alternatives to this type of disposal?
- No one present to answer
If it does leach, who is responsible?
- No one present to answer
- Hopkins says: If process goes forward, National Academy of Science advises long term liability and monitoring
It rains a lot around here, how will things work while its being built and how will it stay wet?
- Hopkins: If you're not landfilling the material, you aren't held to the stringent technology that requires regulation of things like this
- Santucci: Issues like this will require much more involvement, demand and expect answers to question like this. This will only stop if enough citizens get involved
To Barbara: Who if anyone are you sueing for destruction of your property ?
- Water main was put through flyash, flyash is corrosive.
- Leaked for months and burst out afterwards
- Hold power plant responsible
- Hold DOT responsible because they put the flyash tehre to hold the road up
- Hold the water authority responsible for putting the water main there
- The Penn. DEP held responsible for bad cleanup
100 million tons have been disposed, but it has not ben regulated or even registered, what other tome bombs are waiting to be catastrophes like the one in Pennsylvania.
- Hopkins: A lot, but it takes a long time for the leach toe be detected and failure toe occur.
- Less than 30 days remains before the project is approved
- It looks like this project is going through and there is nothing to stop the project
- The project can begin if DEQ does not respond
- Please sign the petition for a moratorium
What would the partnership do with this profit?
- Doug: Donate the money to the Giles Technology Center. Supports the center, but please do not do things recklessly here.
How did the project get this far without anything told to the people? Where is the EIS (Environmental Impact Statement)?
- No answer
Will we be drinking the water that comes out of the site?
- A new treatment plant would raise the the cost of drinking water in Giles County 30 - 40%
How long will it take for the harmful toxicants toe leach from the site, where will they go, and what will they do?
- Hopkins: Takes months, years, or decades. Rigirous site characterization is necessary.
- Hopkins: Materials will wash downstream and be diluted quickly. Typically there are areas of deposition where the contaminants will be caught, backwater areas and the like.
Can contaminants be transfered to humans?
- Hopkins: absolutely, through breastmilk and in the placenta
Do we know what the geology under the site is? If not, where can we obtain the information?
- Santucci: the subsurface water will be 6 feet below the site
Comment: Giles County is in a site if seismic activity! This must be considered. This is a very big concern.
There is a main drainage problem from 460 onto the site. Lots of water goes to the site and stays there for days. This will go into the site and then the groundwater. How are they going to deal with this!?
- Hopkins: AEP should be here to answer the questions if they have appropriately characterized the site.
The campground residents have been told that they will put in a berm. It will come in 20 ft from the the existing fence. Mr. Spencer from the campground has known about this since March.
What can we do to stop this!? There must be something!
- Get the Army Corps of Engineers to come in and inspect
- Show up in mass to supervisors meetings
- Let your public representatives know about this!
In this call to actions what's next after the board of supervisors meeting?
- Find when GCPE will meet again.
- Howard Spencer
- Go toe DEQ immediately, demand information on the permit, demand a moratorium
Next Meeting October 17th in Pearisburg Town Hall
Another contact for questions: Dan Robertson - dhlmrobertson@southernlink.net
