On the Community News portion of the Department of Environmental Resources Northeast Region page there is a document titled "HCP Comment & Response Document (PDF)". If you click on that link the 57 page document the following opening paragraph reads
On October 24, 2009, the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) began a thirty-day public comment period on a registration for a residual waste general permit submitted by Hazleton Creek Properties, LLC (HCP). The application is for a research and development project involving the use of construction and demolition fines and regulated fill in mine reclamation and as construction material. Comments were received from the 712 commentators listed at the end of this document. Relevant comments derived from written comments received during the public comment period have been summarized below. Comments are representative of single or multiple commentators. Department responses are provided for each comment or grouping of comments.
The last sentence tells all. Here are some of the comments and responses.
4. Comment:
25 Pa. Code 287.611(e)(3) states that DEP will not issue a general permit for “the use of residual waste to fill open pits from coal or noncoal mining except for coal ash mixed with residual waste … .” (89)
Response:
DEP can waive or modify this provision in accordance with Section 287.632.
With regards to Todd Eachus's persistent claim that a liner MUST be put on the site read the next comment:
5. Comment:
The failure of HCP to install a liner, along with a leachate collection and treatment system, to protect the groundwater creates a great risk to the health and safety of the City of Hazleton, since the general permit is for the R&D of new, untested technology. (89, 92, 93, 672, 673, 675, 678, 680)
Response:
Mine reclamation projects do not require a liner or other containment systems, since the proposed chemical limits are considered protective without the need of a liner system. If approved, the authorization to operate under the general permit would include a number of safeguards, such as sampling and analysis of the incoming materials, groundwater monitoring and regular reporting, to ensure that problems, though not expected, would be quickly identified and addressed.
SOP has pointed out the Times Leader reporters that there isn't enough material on site to remediate and reclaim the land.
6. Comment:
Normally, mine reclamation is accomplished using available on-site overburden (mine spoil) for backfilling. (89)
Response:
There is not enough on-site overburden to properly reclaim the site. Typically, additional materials are needed to complete remediation at any mine site.
With regards to the scientific evidence claim by Rogers that “There is abundant scientific data already available that provides evidence of environmental degradation and harm when solid waste is disposed of as proposed by HCP,” he concluded Take a look at these comments and responses.
8. Comment:
How these materials react to the physical environment is not known. (89)
Response:
This is part of the information that will be attained through the R&D project. It is not anticipated that the placement of these materials will negatively impact or harm the environment. The R & D project will produce data to evaluate the ability of regulated fill and construction and demolition fines to perform as a construction material.
9. Comment:
Research projects typically include extensive baseline analyses of the geology, hydrogeologic conditions, and water quality at the site. It is our understanding that such extensive analyses have not been done. (89)
Response:
An extensive baseline environmental report has been done at this site by Groundwater Sciences Corporation in 2004. In addition, an enhanced groundwater monitoring plan was developed for this site and additional groundwater monitoring data has already been generated by HCP.
Eachus tried to tell the public that Geologits Robert Gadinski's report was correct.
Mark McClellan of Evergreen Environmental, Inc., a consultant for Hazleton Creek Properties, had these remarks regarding Gadinski's report. "Everything Mr. Gadinski claimed here is erroneous, untrue and an absolute misrepresentation of the facts," DEP responds to Mr. Gadinsk's comments in its report.
11. Comments:
The report issued by Mr. Gadinski suggests that the present groundwater monitoring plan at the site is woefully inadequate and is inconsistent with DEP’s Groundwater Guidance Manual. (89, 92, 93, 565, 672, 673, 675, 684)
Until HCP can propose a monitoring system that is approved by a third-party, it is irresponsible to place experimental dredged material and construction and demolition fines so close to our homes. (678)
Response:
The current enhanced groundwater monitoring plan for this site was developed by HCP and approved by DEP as a result of an appeal of General Permit Number WMGR085D001 by Citizen Advocates United to Safeguard the Environment (CAUSE) to the Environmental Hearing Board. Prior to DEP approval, CAUSE, through its consultant, Mr. Gadinski, was given an opportunity to review and comment on the enhanced plan that was submitted by HCP. It was determined by DEP, and agreed to by CAUSE through Mr. Gadinski, that the enhanced groundwater monitoring plan, including the additional work requested by CAUSE, as submitted by HCP was adequate. DEP continues to believe that the plan will be effective in protecting human health and the environment.
The entire report appears to refute every claim by the opponents of this plan. It certainly addresses the concerns of Mr. Rogers. Mr. Eachus's protests appear to be a misguided political attack with no scientific or regulatory foundation.
Showing posts with label Chuck Rogers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Chuck Rogers. Show all posts
Friday, April 23, 2010
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Link To General Permit WMGR097 For Hazleton Creek Properties
On March 13, 2010 Mia Light of the Standard Speaker wrote an article about the permit approval for Hazleton Creek Properties that would use processed construction and demolition debris with regulated fill to reclaim the abandoned mineland on Hazleton's south side.
Hazleton Creek Properties sought DEP approval of a research and development project that would combine construction and demolition "fines" with approved fill materials to reclaim the mine-scarred site. Construction and demolition fines, or C&D fines, are sand- like particles of asphalt, bricks, concrete, gypsum, wood and other materials generated in the construction or demolition of buildings.
These are the products that Todd Eachus and his lapdogs are barking about.
Prior to approving the permit, DEP held a 30-day public comment period on the proposal. A total of 712 comments were received and answered, according to DEP.
In opposition to the permit request last year, state Rep. Todd A. Eachus, D-116, successfully urged DEP to hold a 30-day pubic comment period and also garnered a 15-day extension. He also authored a public input survey on the proposal.
Eachus got everything he asked for but still isn't satisfied with the answer.
According to Frank Keel of Hazleton Creek Properties, the project is designed to achieve three primary goals:
-- Demonstrate the potential for statewide beneficial use of C and D fine materials as valuable for reclamation of abandoned mine lands that pose public safety and environmental risks where no funds or responsible parties exist to complete the critical job.
-- Demonstrate that C and D fine material mixed with regulated fill can produce a reclamation mixture that will produce levels of compaction that will support structures for redevelopment projects and brownfield lands.
-- Expedite the site reclamation and remediation of a critical area by providing an additional high-volume, safe material for mine reclamation purposes.
Here is a link to the General Permit WMGR097 that lists the special conditions for Hazleton Creek Properties to conduct its research and development project at the site in Hazleton. Items 5 through 10 pretty much answer the concerns of the opponents of the project including Chuck Rogers.
5. Wastes covered under this permit as part of this R and D project shall not be hazardous waste or mixed with hazardous waste.
6. Wastes covered under this permit as part of this R and D project shall be kept separate from other wastes generated, processed, stored, or beneficially used at this site.
7. Wastes covered under this permit as part of this R and D project shall not be mixed with other types of solid waste, including municipal waste, special handling waste, or residual waste, that were not specifically identified in the permittee's approved application and information supplied under Condition 2.
8. The duration of the R and D project authorized under this permit shall not exceed one year unless written authorization is received by this Department. Requests for written authorization should include justification as to the reason a longer duration is needed for the success of the R and D project.
9. The total quantity of waste on site for a R and D project at any one time shall not exceed 50 tons unless written authorization is received from the Department. Requests for written authorization should include justification as to the reason a larger quantity of waste is required for the success of the R & D project. For projects involving larger quantities, the Department may determine, on a case by case basis thay bonding is required.
10. This permit does not authorize and shall not be construed as an approval to discharge any waste, wastewater, or runoff from the site of processing to the land or waters of the Commonwealth.
Hazleton Creek Properties sought DEP approval of a research and development project that would combine construction and demolition "fines" with approved fill materials to reclaim the mine-scarred site. Construction and demolition fines, or C&D fines, are sand- like particles of asphalt, bricks, concrete, gypsum, wood and other materials generated in the construction or demolition of buildings.
These are the products that Todd Eachus and his lapdogs are barking about.
Prior to approving the permit, DEP held a 30-day public comment period on the proposal. A total of 712 comments were received and answered, according to DEP.
In opposition to the permit request last year, state Rep. Todd A. Eachus, D-116, successfully urged DEP to hold a 30-day pubic comment period and also garnered a 15-day extension. He also authored a public input survey on the proposal.
Eachus got everything he asked for but still isn't satisfied with the answer.
According to Frank Keel of Hazleton Creek Properties, the project is designed to achieve three primary goals:
-- Demonstrate the potential for statewide beneficial use of C and D fine materials as valuable for reclamation of abandoned mine lands that pose public safety and environmental risks where no funds or responsible parties exist to complete the critical job.
-- Demonstrate that C and D fine material mixed with regulated fill can produce a reclamation mixture that will produce levels of compaction that will support structures for redevelopment projects and brownfield lands.
-- Expedite the site reclamation and remediation of a critical area by providing an additional high-volume, safe material for mine reclamation purposes.
Here is a link to the General Permit WMGR097 that lists the special conditions for Hazleton Creek Properties to conduct its research and development project at the site in Hazleton. Items 5 through 10 pretty much answer the concerns of the opponents of the project including Chuck Rogers.
5. Wastes covered under this permit as part of this R and D project shall not be hazardous waste or mixed with hazardous waste.
6. Wastes covered under this permit as part of this R and D project shall be kept separate from other wastes generated, processed, stored, or beneficially used at this site.
7. Wastes covered under this permit as part of this R and D project shall not be mixed with other types of solid waste, including municipal waste, special handling waste, or residual waste, that were not specifically identified in the permittee's approved application and information supplied under Condition 2.
8. The duration of the R and D project authorized under this permit shall not exceed one year unless written authorization is received by this Department. Requests for written authorization should include justification as to the reason a longer duration is needed for the success of the R and D project.
9. The total quantity of waste on site for a R and D project at any one time shall not exceed 50 tons unless written authorization is received from the Department. Requests for written authorization should include justification as to the reason a larger quantity of waste is required for the success of the R & D project. For projects involving larger quantities, the Department may determine, on a case by case basis thay bonding is required.
10. This permit does not authorize and shall not be construed as an approval to discharge any waste, wastewater, or runoff from the site of processing to the land or waters of the Commonwealth.
DEP Officials Hit With $6.5 Million Verdict
A case recently reported in the media may have implications in the Hazleton Creek Properties issue brought by Chuck Rogers of the Department of Environmentl Resources.
DEP Officials Personally Hit With $6.5 Million Verdict
In 2003, MFS applied to the DEP for a renewal of its Title V air quality operating permit, which required MFS to meet several EPA standards. After entering into a consent decree with the EPA to address these standards, MFS again requested that DEP issue it an operating permit. However, DEP regional air program staff informed MFS that they would not reissue a permit. MFS requested a meeting with the DEP Secretary. Prior to the meeting, the same regional staff gave the Secretary a summary of the MFS matter containing several allegedly misleading statements, and the Secretary ultimately decided to leave the issue of a permit up to the regional officials. The DEP regional officials offered to issue the permit on some 91 conditions, including an absolute right to shut the facility down, and compliance standards that one of the DEP employees admitted re-wrote an earlier EPA consent decree in an effort to impose more stringent standards on MFS. When another mineral wool manufacturing company expressed interest in purchasing the MFS facility, one of the DEP officials wrote a mutual customer of the two companies indicating that MFS had malodor and compliance issues. With the hope of any resolution looking dim, MFS sold off its machinery and liquidated in March 2008.
In May 2008, MFS instituted suit in federal court against four DEP staff members (including the regional director, a staff attorney, and regional air program managers) alleging that their various involvement in the actions described above amounted to violations of MFS's constitutional rights of due process and equal protection, intentional interference with a prospective contract, and retaliation.
The jury found that the four DEP employees had retaliated against MFS for exercising its First Amendment rights in requesting a meeting with the DEP Secretary.[1] In response to MFS's state law claim for interference with a prospective contract, the state employees asserted protection under Pennsylvania's Sovereign Immunity Act. The Court, however, stripped their sovereign immunity because there was sufficient evidence for a jury to find that in their actions, the employees' intent was not to do their jobs, but instead to do harm to MFS. The jury agreed and found that the state employees had both interfered with a prospective contract and acted outside the scope of their employment. On the constitutional challenges, the Court also denied the employees protection at the summary judgment stage under the doctrine of qualified immunity, which protects government officials from civil suits for damages where their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights that would have been known to a reasonable official. The jury found violations of due process and equal protection, and made further findings of fact which denied the officials immunity.[2] The jury verdict ordered the four government employees to pay MFS $6.5 million in damages.
A memo leaked to the Times Leader appears to have political finger and handprints all over it. Frank Keel of Hazleton Creek Properties had this to say about the matter in an article written by Kent Jackson of the Standard Speaker.
Frank Keel, a spokesman for Hazleton Creek, said leak of the memo was disturbing for many reasons and occurred during a contentious election season.
"One might speculate that there is more than a tinge of politics at work in these out-of-nowhere allegations," Keel said in a statement. "The company met every condition and complied with every regulation set forth by the DEP over many months and in a very transparent process, which is why it was granted the permit to begin work on this environmentally and economically sound mine reclamation project."
Chuck Rogers raised issues over the permitting for the Hazleton Creek Properties project by stating his office was not involved in the permitting process according to Jerry Lynott of the Times Leader. According to officials at DEP all permitting is performed at the central office in Harrisburg, not in the regional offices. Rogers makes the claim that Hazleton Creek Properties is in violation of its permit yet no material has come to the site in question.
There will be more on this issue in the days and weeks to come.
DEP Officials Personally Hit With $6.5 Million Verdict
In 2003, MFS applied to the DEP for a renewal of its Title V air quality operating permit, which required MFS to meet several EPA standards. After entering into a consent decree with the EPA to address these standards, MFS again requested that DEP issue it an operating permit. However, DEP regional air program staff informed MFS that they would not reissue a permit. MFS requested a meeting with the DEP Secretary. Prior to the meeting, the same regional staff gave the Secretary a summary of the MFS matter containing several allegedly misleading statements, and the Secretary ultimately decided to leave the issue of a permit up to the regional officials. The DEP regional officials offered to issue the permit on some 91 conditions, including an absolute right to shut the facility down, and compliance standards that one of the DEP employees admitted re-wrote an earlier EPA consent decree in an effort to impose more stringent standards on MFS. When another mineral wool manufacturing company expressed interest in purchasing the MFS facility, one of the DEP officials wrote a mutual customer of the two companies indicating that MFS had malodor and compliance issues. With the hope of any resolution looking dim, MFS sold off its machinery and liquidated in March 2008.
In May 2008, MFS instituted suit in federal court against four DEP staff members (including the regional director, a staff attorney, and regional air program managers) alleging that their various involvement in the actions described above amounted to violations of MFS's constitutional rights of due process and equal protection, intentional interference with a prospective contract, and retaliation.
The jury found that the four DEP employees had retaliated against MFS for exercising its First Amendment rights in requesting a meeting with the DEP Secretary.[1] In response to MFS's state law claim for interference with a prospective contract, the state employees asserted protection under Pennsylvania's Sovereign Immunity Act. The Court, however, stripped their sovereign immunity because there was sufficient evidence for a jury to find that in their actions, the employees' intent was not to do their jobs, but instead to do harm to MFS. The jury agreed and found that the state employees had both interfered with a prospective contract and acted outside the scope of their employment. On the constitutional challenges, the Court also denied the employees protection at the summary judgment stage under the doctrine of qualified immunity, which protects government officials from civil suits for damages where their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights that would have been known to a reasonable official. The jury found violations of due process and equal protection, and made further findings of fact which denied the officials immunity.[2] The jury verdict ordered the four government employees to pay MFS $6.5 million in damages.
A memo leaked to the Times Leader appears to have political finger and handprints all over it. Frank Keel of Hazleton Creek Properties had this to say about the matter in an article written by Kent Jackson of the Standard Speaker.
Frank Keel, a spokesman for Hazleton Creek, said leak of the memo was disturbing for many reasons and occurred during a contentious election season.
"One might speculate that there is more than a tinge of politics at work in these out-of-nowhere allegations," Keel said in a statement. "The company met every condition and complied with every regulation set forth by the DEP over many months and in a very transparent process, which is why it was granted the permit to begin work on this environmentally and economically sound mine reclamation project."
Chuck Rogers raised issues over the permitting for the Hazleton Creek Properties project by stating his office was not involved in the permitting process according to Jerry Lynott of the Times Leader. According to officials at DEP all permitting is performed at the central office in Harrisburg, not in the regional offices. Rogers makes the claim that Hazleton Creek Properties is in violation of its permit yet no material has come to the site in question.
There will be more on this issue in the days and weeks to come.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)