City administrator questions scenarios that may lead to contamination

By Sheila Harris [email protected]

Richard Asbill, city administrator of Cassville, is concerned about the future quality of the city’s public drinking water if the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (DNR) approves a pending operating permit for a sludge-storage tank. 

The 900,000-gallon tank will be constructed on private property two miles north of, and uphill from, Cassville, alongside Farm Road 1095.

Asbill believes the planned site for the sludge tank could be too close to the city’s five public wells, located at various locations and elevations throughout the city of some 3,000 residents, situated at the juncture of seven valleys alongside Flat Creek. The wells — which serve residents, businesses, schools, healthcare providers, public-safety operations and other essential community services — draw from groundwater, as do those of most municipalities in the southern Missouri Ozarks, according to the DNR.

“A major source of groundwater concern [in Ozarks karst regions], according to the DNR’s Nonpoint Source Management Plan (NSMP), ‘is the potentially rapid and unfiltered transmission of contaminated surface runoff or leachate through fractures or sinkholes and directly into potable aquifers.’”

Agricultural activities, such as the planned land-application of processing waste after the storage tanks are constructed, are considered a nonpoint source of pollution, or a no-discharge operation, because the pollution originates from a non-specific source. By comparison, point sources of pollution have an identifiable discharge point.

Asbill is familiar with the DNR’s Nonpoint Source Management Plan.

“[The plan is] primarily Missouri’s policy and planning document under Clean Water Act §319,” Asbill said. “It focuses on watershed planning, voluntary practices, monitoring, grants and reduction of diffuse pollution, [but] it is not itself a facility-permitting regulation.”

However, the plan contains language directly relevant to the DNR’s proposal to place a sludge-storage tank in close proximity to Cassville, showing that the Department should be aware of the hazards involved, including the threat of surface and groundwater contamination from animal production and processing waste in karst landscapes, Asbill says.

Caves are a known conduit for groundwater in the karst regions of the Ozarks. Other karst features include sinkholes, springs and losing streams, all of which facilitate the infiltration of groundwater and its rapid movement. Barry County — part of the 47,000-square-mile interior highlands of the Ozark and Springfield Plateaus — features around 200 caves, states the Missouri Department of Conservation (MDC).

Crystal Caverns is one of Barry County’s best-known cave systems. Once operated commercially, the cave’s entrance lies at the northern edge of Cassville. The extent of its underground footprint has never been fully determined.

If their operating permit is approved by the DNR, HydroAg Environmental, LLC, (based in Russellville, Ark.) will use the sludge storage tank, two miles north of the known groundwater-conduit of Crystal Caverns, for inclement-weather storage of food-processing and meat and poultry-processing wastewater residuals.

Residuals consist of the slurry which remains after coagulant chemicals facilitate their separation from liquids during the wastewater pre-treatment process. The liquids are treated to meet federal guidelines before being released into the environment. The slurry, or “sludge,” is loaded into semi-tankers for transportation and land-application to farmland.

According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), meat and poultry processing effluent is one of the largest sources of industrial nutrient pollution in the country.

Land-applied materials can contain, but are not limited to, animal blood, bodily fluids, pathogens, and excreta, and could have a variety of impacts on the immediate and surrounding environment, states an EPA Environmental Impact Report.

“Effects are not limited to the property on which waste is disposed, because contaminants can percolate into groundwater, accumulate in waterways, and cause air, soil, and water pollution elsewhere,” the EPA document states.

Because of planned land-application in Barry County, at sites as of yet unspecified, Asbill believes that rural water districts and wells could also be endangered.

Groundwater in karst regions can travel as much as one mile per day, said hydrologist, Tom Aley, in an MDC publication, titled “Conserving Missouri’s Caves and Karst.” By way of comparison, groundwater travel rates in non-karst areas are typically only a few feet per year, Aley said.

On Friday, Asbill submitted an email to the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (DNR) with a list of questions relevant to the sludge-tank’s planned proximity to City’s source-water.

“The location of the proposed storage facility near Cassville, together with the karst characteristics of the surrounding area, raises questions regarding groundwater movement and the protection of the City’s public water-supply wells,” he said.

Asbill’s request for clarification follows a 30-day public-comment period and two public meetings hosted by the DNR for the purpose of receiving public input about draft permits for the Cassville storage tank and two similar tanks to be constructed by Denali Water Solutions, LLC, at sites near Wentworth and Humansville.

The City of Cassville participated in the public-comment process, which ended July 15, Asbill says, but after further review, more questions arose.

Asbill questions whether the DNR’s permit will require baseline and ongoing groundwater monitoring.

“If groundwater monitoring is not required, please explain how the DNR determined that such monitoring is unnecessary at this location,” he said.

Asbill expressed additional concerns about the source and testing of materials in the tank; their secure containment; how leaks would be detected; and how emergency notification to the City would take place if there was a leak that threatened Cassville’s drinking water.

Asbill further asked how the department would handle odor complaints, and what a disposal plan would look like, if disposal of the tank’s contents became necessary in response to environmental contamination or the operator’s inability to fulfill a contract.

“Are resources available if such a disposal is necessary?” he said. “We recognize that DNR must evaluate the application under applicable Missouri law and regulatory standards. The City’s request is that the final administrative record clearly demonstrate how Cassville’s public water supply, the area’s karst geology, and the potential consequences of an unauthorized release were considered in the Department’s decision.”

Asbill recommends that the DNR consult with the Department’s Drinking Water Division and the city of Cassville’s public water personnel before a decision is made.

He also asks that the DNR provide the city with a written response to his questions or identify the documents in the permit record that address them, before final agency action regarding the approval of a permit for the Cassville storage tank.

“[We need to understand] how those concerns will be addressed before a final permit decision [by the DNR] is made,” Asbill said. “DNR’s own statewide management plan recognizes the precise regional conditions and pollutant pathways raised by the City. DNR should explain how its permit review and proposed conditions are consistent with those findings.”

Asbill questions whether the DNR is evaluating only whether the sludge tank can physically hold the material, or if the Department is also evaluating the environmental consequences of a leak, overflow, transportation spill or ultimate land application in a karst region.

Heather Peters, water pollution section chief with the DNR, responded that permits for storage and permits for land application are separate and distinct decisions, based on the applications.

“These storage tank draft permits expressly prohibit land application under the permit conditions,” she said. “Material must be managed under an appropriate permit or hauled out of state. In short, I cannot deny a permit application for storage based on concerns raised with other permits. They are two separate decisions (and issuance of one permit decision does not affect the other permit decision).”

Peters explained that state and federal laws and regulations establish permit application, permit issuance and permit denial requirements.

“Our decisions must be based on, and are limited by, the applicable laws and regulations under which we are operating,” Peters said. “We cannot render decisions under the Missouri Clean Water Law based on concerns about air/odor, nuisance law, traffic or other issues that are beyond the scope of our law and implementing regulations.”

Regarding setback distances from public wells, Peters explained that the department has regulations that establish setback distances to those wells. Any permit decision would be based on those setback distances established in regulation. 

“If interested parties would like to discuss those setback distances, our rulemaking process offers many extensive opportunities for feedback and input,” Peters said. “A permit establishes enforceable requirements, limitations and conditions A permit decision should be based on a) whether the application meets all of the necessary requirements to obtain a permit and b) whether the permit is sufficiently protective and is in compliance with all applicable permitting regulations.”

According to Peters, inspections, compliance assistance, and enforcement are all used to verify compliance or noncompliance with the established permit conditions, laws and regulations.

“For example, the draft permit expressly prohibits spills or overflows and requires immediate reporting of any releases,” she said. “The draft permit also requires two methods of leak detection to monitor for leaks and releases. We cannot deny a permit application based on a concern that the responsible authority could violate the permit, any more than a police officer could prohibit someone from buying a fast car because it could speed. We must address violations as they arise.”

Peters emphasized that the permit also includes language that specifies that the permit may be revoked if the facility/tank cannot meet the no-discharge requirements.

According to Peters, some additional permit requirements were added to the draft permit after the first public notice in response to constructive public feedback.

“The department is currently reviewing comments received during the most recent public notice to determine a) the appropriate permit decision and/or b) changes that are warranted to the draft permit,” she said.

Peters says that she does not have final responses to any of the comments, as the department is still reviewing the comments prior to rendering a final permit decision.

A full copy of Asbill’s letter to the DNR can be viewed in this story online at www.cassville-democrat.com.

A copy of Asbill’s letter was sent to State Sen. Mike Moon, R-Ash Grove, and State Rep. Scott Cupps, R-Shell Knob.