Accessible version
Plain-text transcript preview
Generated by layout-aware native PDF text extraction; 27 image-only or blank pages remain available in the PDF. Tables, maps, columns, and symbols may not translate perfectly.
[Page 1]
OO
Office of Adjudications
79 Elm Street • Hartford, CT 06106-5127 www.ct.gov/deep Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer
IN THE MATTER OF : APPLICATION NOS. 201903454,
201500823, 201903451, 201903425
WHEELABRATOR PUTNAM, INC. : December 8, 2021
PROPOSED FINAL DECISION
I.
SUMMARY
Wheelabrator Putnam, Inc. (“Applicant”) has filed applications with the Department of
Energy and Environmental Protection (“DEEP” or “Department”) seeking permits (i) to modify
its existing solid waste permits to construct and operate an ash residue landfill; (ii) to renew and
modify its existing permit to discharge into the sanitary sewer ; and (iii) to modify its existing
permit to discharge into the groundwater. General Statutes §§22a-208a, 22a-430, Regs., Conn.
State Agencies §§ 22a-209- 4, 22a-209- 7, and 22a-209- 14, 22a-430-3, 22a-430- 4, with
consideration of regulations governing remediation standards and water quality standards. These
applications are in regard to a 68-acre expansion of the Ash Residue Landfill (“Monofill”) located
in Putnam.1 The Department determined that the applications were complete and, following its
sufficiency and technical review, determined that the proposed expansion is necessary and that the
applications complied with the relevant statutes and regulations. A Notice of Tentative
1 A Monofill is a landfill that is intended to be used for only one type of waste, which here is limited to ash residue.
[Page 2]
Determination to approve the applications was published on June 16, 2021, with the draft permits.
A petition for hearing was filed on July 16, 2021.
The parties in this matter are the Applicant and DEEP. A Motion for Admission Pro Hac
Vice and a Petition to Intervene were concurrently filed by counsel for the Conservation Law
Foundation (“CLF”) on September 27, 2021. Because t he Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice
was improperly before me pursuant to the Connecticut Practice Book §2- 16, it was denied; the
Petition to Intervene was then determined to be moot. 2
CLF participated in the hearing process by speaking during the public hearing and
submitting written comments for the record. Other public comments were received in this matter
both in support of and in opposition to these applications.
Following the evidentiary hearing, the Applicant and DEEP staff jointly filed the attached
Agreed Draft Decision (“ADD,” Attachment I).
I have reviewed the entire administrative record in this proceeding, including the
documents and testimony in the record as evidence. The parties’ ADD has been evaluated in the
light of the relevant statutes and regulations. I have considered public concerns, comments and
questions made throughout this hearing process and the responses of the Applicant and DEEP staff
to that public input.
The factual findings and conclusions of law set out in the ADD are comprehensive and
fully supported by substantial evidence in the record and demonstrate that the proposed activities
regarding the expansion of the Monofill set forth in the applications, and as conditioned by the
draft permits (Attachment II), comply with the relevant statutes and regulations. I therefore adopt
the ADD in full as my proposed final decision, including the proposed condition regarding PFAS
2 The petition also had procedural and substantive issues on which the denial was based, including that it was not a
verified pleading as required under General Statutes § 22a-19.
2
[Page 3]
monitoring in the groundwater permit. I also make the following supplemental findings of fact and
conclusions of law.
II.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. There was a typographic error in the ADD in Finding of Fact 53, on Page 16. The Applicant
published notice of the Pretreatment Renewal on February 4, 2015. (Ex. DEEP 51.)
2. Public comments were received regarding the Applicant’s dedication to the community,
the need for the utilization of trash to energy facilities, and the public belief that the
Applicant has “fulfilled its responsibilities during the two plus years of [a] thorough
permitting process to ensure regulatory compliance.” (See Public Comments, Wolanin,
October 1, 2021, Newth, October 4, 2021).
3. Public concerns such as the presence of PFAS at the site, the alleged failure of the double
lined system, the “need for such a large addition to the ash landfill,” and the impact of
discharging “toxic ash” on surrounding water quality were raised through the public
comments. (Public Comments, Eastwood, Taylor, October 7, 2021.)
4. The evidence in the record persuasively and credibly addressed the concerns of the public.
The record supports a determination that the applications, and the regulated activity it
describes, comply with all relevant statutes and regulations enumerated in the ADD.
5. Facilities that generate ash residue are required to follow federal and s tate sampling and
testing protocols to demonstrate that all materials delivered to the Monofill meet the
regulatory definition of nonhazardous material and are appropriate waste for the M onofill.
(Ex. APP - 28 p.5)
6. Public comments regarding the determination of need for this expansion were submitted to
the Department before the release of the June 7, 2021, Preliminary Determination of Need.
3
[Page 4]
This hearing did not include that issue as it was addressed by the Department pursuant to
General Statute §22a- 208d. Nevertheless, it is noteworthy that the Monofill currently
receives ash residue generated by resource recovery facilities located in Bridgeport,
Hartford, Lisbon, Plainfield, and Preston, Connecticut and Peekskill, New York, indirectly
affecting more than eighty percent of the State’s population. The life expectancy of the
current facility is expected be reached in 2022. If no other disposal is developed by that
time, there will be nowhere in this region for disposal of the ash material . The state has
five waste to energy facilities, through which the majority of the waste generated in
Connecticut is disposed, which generates the ash material. There are about two million
tons of Municipal Solid Waste (“MSW”) in the state being disposed, which generates about
500,00 tons of ash per year. In the absence of local disposal, ash would need to travel very
far out of the state. ( Test., Frigon, G., October 18, 2021, 3 exs . APP-28 p.5, DEEP - 82, 86.).
7. The Applicant undertook an alternatives assessment and submitted appropriate information
pertaining to that analysis. The Alternatives Analysis demonstrates that the Putnam site is
the only practicable location in Connecticut to site an ash monofill capable of serving the
long- term needs of Connecticut’s resource recovery facilities. ( Exs. APP -21, 28 p. 5).
8. As required for any new or expanded landfill in Connecticut, this expanded facility will be
sited in a location where there will be no degradation of the current environmental quality
if there was a complete failure of the baseliner systems. Regs., Conn. State Agencies §§
22a-430- 4(c)(20)(E), 22a-209- 4(b)(2)(A), and 22a-209- 14(e). The modification to the
groundwater discharge permit does not allow active discharge of leachate to the ground-
water and actively requires monitoring for any potential leachate. The permit is in place to
3 The evidentiary hearing occurred on October 18, 2021, via Zoom. All referenced testimony occurred during the
evidentiary hearing on that date.
4
[Page 5]
protect the groundwater of the state. As per the requirements of the regulations, if any
leachate were to escape the baseliner system, it would go into the Quinebaug River. Any
such discharge would not change the quality of the river water and the Quinebaug River is
not a drinking water supply because of historic contamination. (Test. Musial, D, Tanguay,
V, exs. APP -29 p.2; APP- 29 p.3, DEEP -14, 31).
9. The hydrogeologic investigation conducted during the permitting process included an
expanded monitoring network in the vicinity of Phases 7- 11, which consisted of installation
of one monitoring well triplet, six monitoring well couplets, two single monitoring wells,
and two staff gauges in the Quinebaug River. Six piezometers 4 were installed in isolated
wetlands and three piezometers were installed in the unnamed perennial stream to assess
ground- water flow. (Ex. APP-29 p.2)
10. The Applicant is required to conduct environmental monitoring going forward and report
to the DEEP quarterly and annually pursuant to the environmental monitoring program.
(Exs. DEEP-36, 67, 68, APP-29 p. 5.)
11. While public comments and concerns were raised regarding the potential failure of the
Monofill baseliner, the history of the monitoring program c onducted on the site has not
identified groundwater, surface water or sediment analytical data that is indicative of a
failure of the M onofill baseliner or leachate collection systems. ( Ex. APP -29 p. 6.)
12. Baseliner systems and materials are designed to last for hundreds of years. The baseliner
system at the Monofill includes the following from bottom to top:
a. Soil subgrade
b. Secondary barrier layer consisting of a sixty -mil high density polyethylene
geomembrane
c. Secondary leachate collection system consisting of a bi -planar geocomposite
drain equivalent to twelve inches of drainage sand with a permeability of 1 x
4 A piezometer is a device used for measuring the pressure of groundwater.
5
[Page 6]
10-3 centimeters/second and a tri planar geocomposite to convey leachate in lieu
of pipes
d. Primary barrier layer consisting of a sixty -mil HDPE geomembrane
e. Primary leachate collection system consisting of twenty-four inches of granular
soil and a network of six -inch diameter slotted leachate collection pipes.
(Test. Musial, D., exs., DEEP -27, APP-30 pp. 2- 3).
13. A site visit occurred on September 21, 2021. The visit consisted of traveling to four
locations by vehicle and walking to three locations on foot. The site is approximately 400
acres of land. Through the site visit, I observed the surrounding area, the transportation of
ash via trucks delivering the ash material, neighboring properties, and the areas of the
property where Phases 7- 11 will be constructed, including wetlands that will be impacted.
Through the site visit, I observed abandoned materials from prior owners which will be
cleaned up through the construction of the expansion. I also observed the existing ash
landfill and the current practices in place to contain the ash material.
14. The issue of trucks carrying ash material through town was raised through public concerns.
At the site visit, I noted that the site is located on private property at the end of a miles long
driveway and is located close to the highway. Additionally, it is notable that several direct
neighbors to this site wrote public comments in support of the expansion.
15. At the time of the public comment and evidentiary hearings , only the draft wastewater
discharge permit contained language in regard to monitoring PFAS. After the public
comment and the evidentiary hearing, the Applicant and DEEP staff agreed to a
modification to the groundwater draft permit. The ADD contains the proposed
modification to the groundwater permit that includes language for PFAS monitoring. (See
ADD p. 35-37, t est. Bieger, P, Tanguay, V, ex. DEEP-80).
III.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
6
[Page 7]
Ten expert witnesses offered testimony during the evidentiary hearing. (Exs. DEEP - 85-
90, APP - 28- 31). I found each expert witnesses’ testimony that was presented to be credible and
persuasive. As further detailed in the ADD, reliance on DEEP staff is appropriate when
determining the information and studies required through the permit process and the Department
may rely on own expertise. See MacDermid v. Dep’t of Environmental Protection, 257 Conn. 128,
139 (2001) (“when the application of agency regulations requires technical, case by case review,
that is precisely the type of situation that calls for agency expertise”). The case at hand requires
significant technical and specific review for each application, and the experts put forth
demonstrated a great depth of understanding of the regulatory and statutory requirements in this
matter, with each expert respectively agreeing that the application they worked on met the statutory
requirements.
I. The application to modify a solid waste permit to construct and operate an
ash residue landfill complies with the applicable requirements of General
Statutes § 22a- 208a and relevant implementing regulations, Regs., Conn.
State Agencies §§ 22a -209- 4, 22a- 209- 7, and 22a- 209- 14.
The ADD fully demonstrates how the application to modify a solid waste permit to
construct and operate an ash residue landfill complies with the applicable requirements of General
Statutes §22a -208a and the relevant implementing regulations.
The application for a solid waste permit to construct and operate an ash residue landfill
goes through several stages of review within the Department. Prior to a draft permit being drafted
and released, it undergoes a sufficiency review of the submitted documents required to review the
application. After all required information is submitted, the Department conducts a technical
review, which includes but is not limited to an environmental compliance review of operations at
the site. At the conclusion of the sufficiency and technical review, DEEP staff develop the draft
7
[Page 8]
permit and issue a notice of tentative determination. (See Exs. DEEP -10, 28, 39 to 44, 46- 49, 76
to 79, 81, 82, 85).
II. The application to review and modify a permit to discharge into the waters
of the State (sanitary sewer), complies with the applicable requirements of
General Statutes §22a- 430 and relevant implementing regulations, Regs.,
Conn. State Agencies §§ 22a- 430- 3, 22a- 430- 4.
As the ADD fully addresses, the application to review and modify a permit to discharge
into the waters of the State (sanitary sewer), complies with the applicable requirements of General
Statutes §22a -430 and the relevant implementing regulations.
The Department conducted an extensive review of the pretreatment renewal application
and conducted a sufficiency review and technical review of the application prior to developing the
draft permit. See Exs. DEEP -14, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 58, 80, 84, 88. As part of this review, DEEP
staff conducted a review of the Applicant’s compliance history with respect to the current
pretreatment permit. Ultimately, the technical review determined that the proposed, treated
discharge would not adversely affect the Putnam public water treatment works or the waters of the
state (Ex. DEEP 88). Notably, the draft permit contains an enforceable compliance schedule which
requires the A pplicant to submit a sampling plan, including undergoing sampling events for PFAS.
The monitoring requirements can be found in draft fact sheet ( Exs. DEEP -84, 88).
III. The application for a permit to modify a permit to discharge into the
waters of the State (groundwater) complies with the applicable
requirements of General Statute §22a- 430 and relevant implementing
regulations, Regs., Conn. State Agencies §§22a- 430- 3 and 22a- 430- 4, with
consideration of regulations governing remediation standards and water
quality standards.
The ADD demonstrates that the application for a permit to modify a permit to discharge
into the waters of the State (groundwater) complies with the applicable requirements of General
Statutes §22a -430 and the relevant implementing regulations.
8
[Page 9]
The DEEP staff completed a thorough and complete review of the application in re gard to
modifying a permit to discharge into the ground waters of the state. See Exs. DEEP -14, 26, 28, 29,
31, 33, 35, 36, 38, 63 to 70, 81, 82, 87, 105.
IV.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
If conducted as proposed and in accordance with the terms and conditions of the draft
permits, including the proposed condition on PFAS monitoring in the groundwater permit, these
regulated activities will be consistent with all relevant statutes and regulations. I recommend that
the Commissioner finalize and issue the requested permits as soon as possible so this project may
proceed.
_________________________________
Kathleen W. Reiser, Hearing Officer
9
[Page 10]
Attachment I
STATE OF CONNECTICUT
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
OFFICE OF ADJUDICATIONS
IN THE MATTER OF : APPLICATION NOS. 201903454,
: 201500823, 201903451, 201903452
:
WHEELABRATOR PUTNAM INC. : November 19, 2021
AGREED DRAFT DECISION
Pursuant to § 22a-3a-6(1)(3)(A)(ii) of the Rules of Practice of the Connecticut
Department of Energy & Environmental Protection (“DEEP”),1 Wheelabrator Putnam Inc. (the
This is the opening portion of a long document. Use Download complete plain text above for the full extracted transcript.