MY TAKE - Wallingford wins border dispute / Meriden Landfill / 91 N. Turnpike Road

Political cartoon as published in the Record Journal on Sunday October 20th, 2013

On Tuesday October 15th a story titled Wallingford wins border dispute was published in the Record Journal.

In the story the details that were outlined how the city of Meriden was denied a request for a special permit application to create a “disposal cell” on a six-acre portion of the South Meriden landfill, the portion that sits in Wallingford, which was capped in 2006.

Meriden submitted plans to the Wallingford Planning and Zoning Commission to reopen part of the landfill as their officials had hoped to store waste from street sweeping and catch basin remnant materials accumulated by the Public Works Department.

The same type of street sweeping and catch basin remnant materials that Wallingford stored at 91 North Turnpike Road.

Meriden needed approval from the Wallingford Planning and Zoning Commission to move forward but in August 2007, they unanimously to deny Meriden’s application. Officials on the PZC at the time said the project posed dangers to public health, safety and welfare.

According to the article “In 1980, the state Department of Energy and Environmental Protection began studying the effects of the landfill on the aquifer. In 1987, dangerous levels of trichloroethylene – a human carcinogen – were found in one of the wells fed by the aquifer under the landfill. State Rep. Mary Fritz, D-Wallingford, said the state spent about $1 million to clean the site in 1989, and that she felt opening up the landfill for further use was not ideal.

Meriden officials said at the time they did not plan on storing hazardous materials at the site.

I would remind everyone that Wallingford fought this very hard because of a prior issue with what was in the materials and how it affected the protected aquifer. It didn’t matter that Meriden assured us that they were not going to store hazardous materials there; we didn’t want to take the risk. The PZC understood that potential risk and they denied the application and when Meriden took us to Superior Court to appeal the court agreed with Wallingford.

Fast forward to 2009 and we have a situation where DEEP and the Wallingford Inland Wetland and Watercourses Commission that it is in violation for it’s continued use of 91 North Turnpike Road, which sits on top of a protected aquifer, FOR THE VERY SAME REASONS WE STOPPED MERIDEN FROM RE-OPENING A CLOSED SECTION OF THEIR LANDFILL WHERE IT SITS IN WALLINGFORD.

And when I asked why we are still using 91 North Turnpike Road, the Director of Public Works tells myself, the remainder of the Wallingford Town Council and the Mayor as follows (as reported from the Record Journal):

The practice continued, McCully said, as a “very large load of sand from street sweepers” remained stockpiled at the site.

“There’s nowhere else to put the sand,” McCully told Zandri. In a given year, McCully said, the town purchases between 5,000 and 7,000 tons of sand mixed with salt. It needs to be kept somewhere, he said, and another location wasn’t found because “I had higher priorities.”

Zandri pointed out that McCully has had four years to address the issue. McCully said he looked into using the resident drop-off area for storage, but the material was not suitable to the area. Asked by Zandri if it was a fair assessment that “no effort was made over four years to find another location,” McCully agreed.

It wasn’t the intention to keep the material stored at the “dog pit” long term, McCully said, and the plan was to remove it after 2009, but “obviously it never got to that and I accept responsibility for that.”


So I ask the residents of Wallingford, if Meriden simply started using their landfill area again, the portion that rests in Wallingford, and “got away with it” for four years with the excuse of “there is nowhere else to put the sand” and backed that up with “we accept responsibility for doing that” would we be as forgiving and willing to just say “OK – well…. just don’t do it anymore”?

I do not believe so.

This Tuesday, October 22nd, there is an item scheduled to be on the Council agenda titled “Questions and answers of the department head of Public Works and the Mayor regarding the activities, total costs, and accountability to the taxpayers of Wallingford for town property located at 91 North Turnpike Road.  Activities to include, but not limited to, street sweepings, disposal of catch basin materials, discharge from the Vac Truck, and street millings” – I encourage you to attend the meeting or at the very least watch it on GTV once it is available for viewing; it will show that this is much more than a four year problem and it will show just how aware the administration was of everything going on.

Excerpts from DEEP notices / PDF of letter of violation

Via this link you can review the entire “Notice of Violation for solid waste violations in the Town of Wallingford.”

Below are the “Excerpts from DEEP notices” as published in the Record Journal on Sunday July 7, 2013

WALLINGFORD — The town has been cited for nine violations of environmental laws and regulations for its handling of waste at two town-owned properties — 91 N. Turnpike Road and 157 John St. The following are excerpts from the DEEP’s June 13 Notice of Violation addressed to Mayor William W. Dickinson Jr.:

The purpose of this Notice is to inform you that personnel of the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (“DEEP”) have made observations or otherwise obtained information indicating that a violation of law has occurred at property located at 91 North Turnpike Road and 157 John Street in Wallingford, Connecticut. On May 15, 2013, an inspection was conducted by DEEP, Bureau of Materials Management and Compliance Assurance... Based upon that inspection, it appears that the town has:

1. Built, established, altered and/or operated a solid waste facility where more than ten cubic yards of solid waste including, but not limited to catch basin cleanings and oily wastewater, were disposed of after July 1, 1971, without a plan, design and method of operation of such solid waste facility having been filed with the Department and approved by the Commissioner by the issuance of a permit to construct and operate a solid waste facility...

2. Violated the Approval of Registration under the General Permit to Construct and Operate Certain Recycling Facilities to Operate a Drop-Site Recycling Facility Permit Registration ... at 157 John Street in Wallingford.

3. Violated the Drop-Site Recycling Facility Permit Registration ... at 157 John Street ... for failure to provide a berm so as to prevent run-on and failure to provide a spill containment system capable of containing 100% by volume of the contents of the 275 gallon existing used oil tank.

4. Violated the Drop-Site Recycling Facility Permit Registration ... at 157 John Street ... for failure to ensure that no person other than an employee of the facility, or person under the supervision of such an employee, may pour used oil into a collection container or tank at the facility.

5. Violated the Drop-Site Recycling Facility Permit Registration at 157 John Street ... for failure to provide an adequate temporary storage area for residents to drop off containers of used oil. This temporary storage area shall be adjacent to the used oil tank and shall, at a minimum, have a sufficiently impervious surface, have three walls and a roof, and provide for secondary containment.

6. Violated the Drop-Site Recycling Facility Permit Registration at 157 John Street ... for failure to store no more than sixty (60) scrap metal appliances containing CFCs on-site. Specifically, approximately seventy (70) individual units were observed on-site at the time of the inspection.

7. Failed to manage used oil as required by Section 22a-449(c)119(a)(2)(N) and (O) of the RCSA,incorporating Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (“40 CFR”) 279.22(d), with specified changes.

8. Failed to ensure that used oil generated by the Town of Wallingford was transported only by transporters who had obtained EPA identification numbers as required...

9. Failed to have a permit to operate a used oil collection center as required... Specifically, there are certain regulatory requirements that must be met prior to aggregating the used oil from the used oil storage area’s secondary containment to an aggregation point.

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: Under the Department’s “Guideline for Municipal Management Practices for Street Sweepings and Catch Basin Cleaning” ..., street sweepings are allowed to be stored at a designated temporary storage location for less than one year. The Town of Wallingford stated that the existing street sweepings stockpile at 91 North Turnpike Road accumulated over three years. The Town of Wallingford is required to either reuse in accordance with the Department’s guideline or send off-site for disposal at a permitted facility all street sweepings from this site. The Town of Wallingford is advised that the violations cited above can reasonably be expected to create a source of pollution to the waters of the State, by a release of used oil and other solid waste to the ground. Such a condition would be in Violation of CGS Section 22a-427, and would require action by the Town to remedy this condition.

Town challenges DEEP notice on recycling issues

As published in the Record Journal Wednesday July 10, 2013

By Andrew Ragali
Record-Journal staff
aragali@record-journal.com
(203) 317-2224
Twitter:@AndyRagz

WALLINGFORD — The town is either asking for clarification or disagreeing with seven of nine violations cited by the state Department of Energy and Environmental Protection. The violations, subject of a notice issued June 13, pertain to operations at the municipal recycling center on John Street and a Public Works dumping and storage facility on North Turnpike Road.

Public Works Director Henry McCully wrote June 28 to Laurene Buckowski, a DEEP sanitary engineer, questioning many of the violations cited. While McCully wrote that the town has fully complied with DEEP standards at 91 N. Turnpike Road, he questions or asks for clarifications on seven of the eight violations cited regarding the town’s recycling center.

“In addition to working with you to resolve these issues,” McCully wrote, “it may be advisable to review certain requirements with our contractor at the recycling center.”
Fabio Enterprises, of Wallingford, is under contract with the town to operate the recycling center.

The nine violations cited were the result of a May 15 DEEP inspection of both facilities. The state found the town violated state environmental laws and regulations by improperly disposing of residential waste oil at the 157 John St. facility, while Public Works was cited for illegal dumping on the 91 N. Turnpike Road property.

A letter of compliance must be submitted within 30 days of a notice of violation, according to the DEEP. If the town does not comply, civil penalties of up to $25,000 may be assessed for each day the town is knowingly in violation of DEEP standards.

According to the timeframe of the initial notice of violation, the town must officially respond with a compliance letter by Friday. On Tuesday, Mayor William W. Dickinson Jr. said, “I believe that we will be able to respond within that timeframe.”

In his letter, McCully said he was concerned about the timeframe. He said that the mayor did not receive the initial notice in full until June 21, eight days after it was issued. Mc-Cully wrote that “if it becomes necessary, we may need additional time.” Dickinson said he is overseeing the situation with DEEP, but at this point the law department and McCully are the main parties involved.

Corporation Counsel Janis Small said Tuesday that she asked McCully to respond to DEEP with some questions, but that his letter was not the town’s final compliance letter.

“We did have a few questions,” she said. “We want to make sure we’re all on the same page.”

McCully’s letter says the town has made the necessary changes at 91 N. Turnpike Road. DEEP had said the town did not have proper permits to store catch-basin cleanings and oily wastewater in the area.

McCully said that from now on, street sweeping waste will be stored in the public works salt shed before being taken to a landfill in Manchester. The oily release at the site, which prompted the DEEP investigation, is being removed, he said, and future catch-basin cleanings at the department’s truck wash station will be done by a contractor. Catch-basin cleaning has been temporarily suspended, he added.

Notice of another violation, related to oil disposal at the recycling center, was issued because the town does not have a “used oil” sign on storage tanks. McCully responded that the tanks are labeled with the words “waste oil,” as well as another sign that reads “used crankcase oil only, do not contaminate this waste oil.”

“It is our belief that the terms ‘waste oil’ and ‘used oil’ have historically been used interchangeably,” McCully said. He asked for further comment.

In another violation involving oil disposal, DEEP said the facility failed to provide an adequate containment area for the 275-gallon used-oil tank.

“The town does not believe there is a violation,” McCully said.

“The secondary containment berm has a capacity of 320 gallons while the tank has a capacity of 275 gallons.”
DEEP said the town failed to ensure that no person other than an employee of the facility, or someone under the supervision of an employee, pours oil into the used-oil tank.

McCully responded that the town contracts with Fabio Enterprises, and that according to bid documents, the contractor is responsible for the collection of waste oil.

McCully said Fabio Enterprises has indicated that residents disposing of oil are supervised.

McCully asked for additional information about what is required.

Responding to a violation cited because a temporary storage area for waste-oil containers isn’t available, McCully said that because the waste-oil tank is supervised, “a temporary storage area for the collection of containers of used oil is not required.”

“Is this correct?” he asked.

A DEEP inspector visiting the recycling center noted about 70 scrap metal appliances, and only 60 are allowed. McCully said the town’s agreement with Fabio Enterprises makes the state’s regulations clear, and the contractor has been notified of the violation.

While Fabio Enterprises runs the facility, “the town is ultimately responsible,” said Robert Isner, program manager of DEEP’s waste management program. “The town is the permit holder with the department,” he said.

McCully said the town did not understand another cited violation regarding managing used oil, and requested clarification. The town was cited for failing to ensure used oil is transported by those with proper credentials. It’s unclear if violation makes sense, McCully said, because his department reuses the waste oil. DEEP also said the town lacks the proper permits for the waste oil site, but McCully said he believes the town’s permit includes the facility.

McCully said he would meet with Buckowski this week for further discussion and clarification.

“We are analyzing the response to the notice of violation provided by the town of Wallingford,” DEEP spokesman Dennis Schain said Tuesday. “We plan on discussing with them issues they raised in their letter and also following up with another inspection of the facility. Our goal is to achieve compliance with conditions of the town’s permit and sound environmental practices and we will continue working with the town to achieve that.”