Stan Olmstead
P.O. Box 403
Jonesborough TN 37659
stanolmstead@gmail.com
March 4, 2019
T.D.E.C: Division of Water Resources
William Snodgrass Tower
312 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, 11th Floor
Nashville TN 37243
To the Division of
Water Resources - Tennessee
Re: NPDES Permit #TN0070394
The following is a comment on State water quality and the proposed
surface wastewater discharge to the Nolichucky River by Daniels & Parvin Sand Company. This sand company is a property
owner asking to establish water discharge under an individual wastewater permit
in association with processed mine materials from a proposed 9.45 acre, sand
and gravel pit adjacent to the Nolichucky River. This comment is associated
with the authorization of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit number TN0070394 that would authorize discharge of sand and
gravel pit “waters” from the pit excavation area as well as haul and access
roads of the operation and these waste waters are to be emptied into the
Nolichucky River. These wastewaters will increase total suspended solids and cause
potential pH changes of the River at Outfall #001 located at river mile 61. The
draft permit says nothing of other materials that may be associated with the
disturbed location of the proposed sand and gravel pit.
Our resource protection agencies state and federal appear
more interested in economic gains than they have concern to the environment?
The lack of this environmental concern is not accepted in the intent of federal
and state water quality law but it can be identified in the science and health
of the river. However a reading of water
quality law does show an allowance for pollution within standards. These
caveats of law, these loopholes of legal language are the specifics of the law
that negate the water quality acts that are used by our resource protection
agencies and allow pollutions that degrade waters and in turn degrade the
aquatics of the river system and negatively impact the human environment.
The intent of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972; (33
U.S.C. 1251), aka: Clean
Water Act (CWA), is to restore and
maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation's
waters by preventing point and nonpoint pollution. The CWA preamble declares that: “Our nation’s waters should be
swimmable and fishable”. This legal obligation improves our national waters and
the requirement should be to improve and continue to improve our state and
national waters as we look for ways to keep our rivers healthy now and into the
future. I contend that the state of
Tennessee is not being diligent in fulfilling this obligation.
The intent
of Tennessee Water Quality Control Act (TWQCA; T.C.A 69-3-102) is to recognize
that the waters of Tennessee are the property of the state and are held in
public trust for the use of the people of the state, it is declared as public
policy that the people of Tennessee, as beneficiaries of this trust, have a right to unpolluted waters. In
the exercise of its public trust over the waters of the state, the state of
Tennessee has an obligation to take all prudent steps to secure, protect, and
preserve this right. It is further declared that the purpose of this is to
abate existing pollution of the waters of Tennessee, to reclaim polluted
waters, to prevent the future pollution of the waters, and to plan for the
future use of the waters so that the water resources of Tennessee might be used
and enjoyed to the fullest extent consistent with unpolluted waters.
The Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC)
has primacy with Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) oversight to assure that
water, air and soil of the state are not negatively impacted. Daniels and
Parvin Sand Company is requesting authorization to pollute state and national
waters for obvious economic gain at the expense of the river’s water quality
and against their fellow citizens whom will be required to pay for the
pollution once the sand and gravel operation is initiated and for many decades
to come. The total suspended solids and other contaminating materials which may
or may not be known that will enter the Nolichucky will result in not only
degraded waters but have lasting degradation of the waters down stream as these
materials work their way to the Gulf of Mexico.
A case in point is Nolichucky Dam and the history of Davy
Crockett Lake. Built in 1913 with an 11,000 acre foot water capacity and
intended for electric generation then abandoned for hydroelectricity in 1972
with 8,800 acre feet of sediments and 2,200 acre feet of water and no longer of
use other than a poor and contaminated water fowl refuge and a problem that is
unsolvable. Daniels and Parvin Sand Company proposal is but one more intended
insult to the Nolichucky River amongst thousands of other insults that will add
sediments and contaminants to the river in an ever increasing process of making
the down stream water quality degraded by the analyzed materials and in
addition those materials not asked for analysis or monitoring but are likely present
in the project area.
The draft water discharge permit proposal has been processed
and written poorly. The document, whomever the author may be, as developed has overlooked
a myriad of concerns for water quality, human health, aquatic health, procedures,
and cumulative impacts to the river system. I have looked for the engineering
report to analyze the containment dike/stream buffer integrity without success.
I ask that TDEC re-evaluate the proposal and to deny the
discharge as presently proposed for the following reasons.
1.
It is inconsistent with the intent of the Clean
Water Act and the Tennessee Water Quality Control Act.
2.
The Tennessee state rules and regulations for
water pollution are extremely lenient for industry and point source pollution
as well as failing in non-point source water pollution which cause a cumulative
negative impact on our state and national surface and ground waters.
3.
The state by allowing the degradation of waters
is inconsistent with the civil rights of our citizens that expect our
government; Local, State and National to work in our best interest and prevent
the degradation of our waters.
The discharge of this polluted water will alter the ecology
of the Nolichucky River and will impact the aquatic life of the river. This
impact is not only to the aquatic organisms that are state and federally listed
as endangered, threatened or sensitive, but also the non-federally and state listed
flora and fauna that are vital for a healthy ecosystem. The permit draft only includes total suspended
solids (TSS) and pH values that limit pH change of the river between 6 – 9 with
no more than a single pH change within a 24-hour period, other potential
contaminates from these riverbank materials are not asked to be monitored nor
are they envisioned by the reporting draft document. Metals and other water contaminants are potentially
residing in these materials from previous water quality contamination to
include the most obvious waste material from nuclear industry activity up
stream conducted since 1957 and has been documented in scientific reports. It
should be stated that there are no safe levels of radiation for human health,
although allowable levels are in the water quality standards to assure industry
is not “impeded by frivolous environmental or health
obligations”.
The state by allowing pollutants to enter the Nolichucky
River will cause degradation to the aquatic health of the river system and in
extension injury to the public. There is a high potential for this water discharge
to cause contamination in the form of increased nutrients of an organic nature that
are incorporated in the inorganic sand materials or organics that alight on the
surface of the project area. These organics have the potential to result in
algal blooms followed by algal die off causing a change in water oxygen
availability to aquatic species. Temperature of the waters can also be altered
due to warm water run off from the bare soils of the pit due to increased
radiant energy to these bare surfaces, which can result in an alteration of the
biological oxygen demand of the river.
I ask that a more thorough analysis of the river geomorphology
be completed by an independent and knowledgeable geologist, whom understands
the geomorphology of river action that develops and erode river meanders to
include; cut bank and point bar development, gravel settling, and the movement
of the river mender over time down stream as years of river flow continue. I
ask that a geomorphologic engineer be employed to independently make an
analysis of the barrier/buffer at the edge of the river, which is intended to
only separate the river and the excavation area by a “mere” 50 feet to
determine its vulnerability to flood waters.
Considering storm events that are based on the short
duration of 10 year and 24 hours is too limited. Believing that the storage
pond to hold water run off from the pit area is adequate and even “over
designed” is naïve. To think it is more than adequate and will not be
compromised by one large storm event especially in our era of Climate Disruption would prove a
complete failure of the proposed project area inundated by floodwaters adding
very large amounts of sediments to an already heavily sediment loaded and
turbid river.
A full analytical and nonbiased report should be conducted
by an independent source. It should be a complete and easy to understand report
offered to the public to assure that wastewaters have near zero impact to the
natural system, agriculture and the public. Waters of the Nolichucky River at
the outfall location are impaired for sediment loading and are listed on
Tennessee’s 303(d) list of impaired waterways. The impairment is due to
sedimentation and siltation from irrigated crop production, sources outside the
Tennessee jurisdiction and grazing in riparian or shoreline zones. The proposed
water discharge permit is “cavalier” in thinking that of all the sediment
loading actions occurring on the Nolichucky River up stream rendering the river
to be impaired that to now add additional sediments to the river which cause
these impairments is an abdication and a failure of state responsibility to
protect state waters.
Adding additional wastewaters to the already impaired waters
will only add an increase of degradation to the river system and cause the
decline of native species of aquatic life. The farming community near the use
area may have a concern about the impact of this pit and it’s subsequent water
run off to this valuable river system. The visual insult caused by this project
to neighbors and the community and on dry days where dust abatement would be
difficult to manage is objectionable but most importantly contamination of
river waters with known material and no concern for unmonitored materials is an
abdication of state water quality intent.
The draft document has two subjective statements that are
challengeable. Best Management Practices and Best Professional Judgment. Best
Management Practices are used as a “trust me” statement for every project. If
resources of academic review were available to counter these management
practices it would most likely result in disputing this claim of best
management? Additionally; Best Professional Judgment can also be challenged as
a subjective determination and an individual knowledgeable in geomorphology of
river system function could easily challenge the earlier “professional” showing
that as the river system works with time the river can compromise an artificial
“support” of the project protecting buffer, allowing the river to seek the area
of least resistance collapsing any dike, buffer or development to hold back the
river.
Criteria of mined wastewater or process wastewater is 40.0
mg/L for total suspended solids and an allowance of pH impact to be within 6.0
to 9.0 Standard Units. The draft document states that no floating scum and
organics will be allowed. The draft
document has no other requirement for potential chemicals within the sediments
no monitoring of heavy metals within the sediments and no consideration that
uranium may have contaminated the sediments by upstream industry.
Although there is no obligation for an Environmental
Assessment the need for this location to acquire sands is in question. Does the
sand company not have an alternative location away from the river and away from
public waters? This river corridor and riparian habitat is certainly not the
location for an open mine activity.
It is noticed in Part I (B): Storm Water Reporting Levels and Monitoring Requirements that the
document states if storm water discharges were to occur that samples would be
necessary after every storm of 0.1 inch or more, TSS would be allowed at
150mg/L, pH would be allowed between 5.0 to 9.0, and that oil and grease would
be monitored and allowed to 15 mg/L during these events. However this
monitoring would be unusually frequent since storm events of 0.1 or more are very
frequent. However since most of the project area would be in association with
run off to the holding pond it is unexpected that the operator would conduct
these sampling activities. I ask is the Storm Water Reporting Levels and
Monitoring Requirements important or unimportant?
I contend that the permit proposal is incomplete for
information and details of the project operation and that the engineering
plan/report be available for study to determine the capability of the buffer to
prevent the river from compromising the project area.
I believe this project has the high likely hood of causing
degradation to the Nolichucky River and is contrary to the Anti-degradation responsibility of the state. I also state that the
caveat of water quality within state regulations that allows degradation of waters
if “economically and socially necessary”
is a subjective call and it bodes the respondent to ask; “who’s economics, who’s
social necessity”? As with Best Management Practices and Best Professional
Judgment this idea that “dollar value to the individual or industry out ways
the economic cost to the public and the social values to the citizen is not
only challengeable but an “oxymoron” that is so common in our statutes which
provides an “out” for development and to degrade nature that is put in place by
“political maneuvering”.
If the social or economic necessity is to be there, then as
with the responsibility to make public a process to inform its citizens of the
proposed water discharge permit. I ask that the indirect costs of the project
to the entirety of the community of citizens be measured fully. That the cost
to our social values be measured. I use my earlier example of the Nolichucky
dam above as one of thousands of such socio-economic impacts in determining the
true cost to the social/economic value.
If Daniels and Parvin Sand Company is intent on marketing
sands they should prepare a more inclusive analysis and assure all concerned
that there will be near Zero impact
to the environment, water quality and health of the Nolichucky River.
I ask that this draft NPDES permit TN0070394 as it is
presently proposed be denied and ask the applicant to assure that any sand mining
activity does not cost neighbors and fellow citizens an expense that Daniels
and Parvin Sand Company is not willing to pay on their behalf.
With Respect,
Stan Olmstead
Natural Resource Advocate
