Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: FRIDAY, March 1, 1991 TAG: 9103010464
SECTION: VIRGINIA PAGE: B1 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: MARK LAYMAN STAFF WRITER
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
But the county says it is waiting for three state agencies to approve a cleanup plan submitted in October.
"I want to [clean it up] as quickly as we can," county utilities director Cliff Craig said. "But we can't do anything until the plan is approved."
The 500,000-gallon-per-day treatment plant, which was built in the early 1960s, was closed in 1989. The lagoon is what Craig calls a "polishing pond." Treated effluent from the plant was stored in the lagoon for 20 to 30 days to allow small particles to settle. The effluent then was chlorinated and discharged into nearby Back Creek.
The plant was closed after the county decided it was cheaper to pump sewage to the regional treatment plant in Southeast Roanoke.
According to Bob Blankenship, an environmental engineer at the Water Control Board's Roanoke office, the county was supposed to submit a "closure plan" for the lagoon by the end of 1989.
County records show a plan was submitted to the Water Control Board, and then to the state Department of Health, in April 1990. A revised plan was submitted to the two agencies in September 1990. Another revised plan was submitted to the Department of Health in October 1990.
Jesse Mayhew, district engineer for the Department of Health Office of Water Programs in Lexington, said he promptly sent the latest revised plan to the state Department of Waste Management in Richmond. As soon as that agency acts on it, he will pass it on to the Water Control Board, he said.
Meanwhile, the Water Control Board has no choice but to keep sending notices of violation to the county. The notices, sent in November and again last month, are "a warning . . . to tell people there's a problem that needs to be addressed," said Bob Johnson, an environmental inspector supervisor for the Water Control Board.
The agency has a points system for violations. "They are getting points, and if the non-compliance continues, they will be referred to the office of enforcement," which could levy fines against the county, he said.
One of the hangups in approval of the plan is a dispute over how long the county should have to complete the cleanup.
The Water Control Board wants the sludge in the lagoon to be removed, or capped with clay, within 12 months. The county wants more time so it can fill the lagoon with free dirt from local builders. If it has to do the job in 12 months, it will have to buy dirt, which could raise the cleanup cost from $200,000 to as much as $2.5 million, Craig said.
Mayhew said the county's latest revised plan didn't include a 12-month timetable for a cleanup; Craig said it did. If it didn't, Blankenship said, the Water Control Board is unlikely to approve it.
The sludge is not hazardous, Mayhew said. "It's mainly a nuisance." The sludge has been tested for heavy metals, pesticides, insecticides and PCBs; and any contaminants that were found were below the hazardous level, he said.
"The lagoon is less of a concern now than it was in the 20 years it was used," Craig said. "There are turtles living down there. They seem to be doing very well."
If Back Creek flooded, the sludge in the lagoon would be washed downstream. But if flood waters got that high, Craig said last fall, "that would be the least of my concerns."
by CNB