DEEP Best Management Practices for Disposal of Snow Accumulations from Roadways and Parking Lots

A letter has been sent to Henry McCully and Mayor Dickinson’s Office regarding snow removal over all in town and the use of the Garden Road property – you can follow this link to read it.

Below are the available DEEP Best Management Practices for Disposal of Snow Accumulations from Roadways and Parking Lots.

Connecticut Department of Energy & Environmental Protection

Best Management Practices for Disposal of Snow Accumulations from Roadways and Parking Lots

Purpose: These guidelines have been developed to clarify DEEP recommendations to state and municipal officials, and others regarding the removal and disposal of snow accumulations from roadways and parking lots. For purposes of this guidance snow accumulations refers to snow banks and snowpiles that are removed by front-end loader or by loading on trucks for disposal. This guidance does not apply to normal snow plowing operations that must, inevitably, discharge some snow into wetlands and watercourses.

Implementation: While following these guidelines does not constitute a permit or authorization, the Department recognizes there is a considerable need for flexibility in implementation of this policy, particularly in emergency situations. There is no intent to interfere with snow plowing operations. Where trucking and snow dumping operations are undertaken the Department recommends these guidelines be followed.

Problem: Current road maintenance activities include removal of snow accumulations from bridges, roads and parking areas for the purpose of providing more space for subsequent snow storms and for ease of travel and parking. Sometimes this snow is moved by truck or with a front-end loader and deposited directly into surface waters of the state including streams, wetlands and Long Island Sound. This practice is not recommended due to the presence of dirt, salt, litter and other debris, which are routinely mixed in the accumulated snow.

Under normal conditions of snowmelt, the majority of these contaminants remains on or next to the paved surface or may be captured in stormwater catch basins. These contaminants can then be swept from streets and bridges or vacuumed from catch basin sumps. However, when accumulated snow is collected and dumped into surface waters, this mixture of snow, sand and debris may smother aquatic life in the bottom of streams and rivers and degrade the aesthetics of the surface water with silt plumes and litter. Large quantities of snow (and the sand and debris) may also cause blockage of storm drainage systems, resulting in increased chance for localized flooding.

Recommended Management Practice: Snow accumulations removed from roadways, bridges, and parking lots should be placed in upland areas only, where sand and other debris will remain after snowmelt for later removal. Care must be exercised not to deposit snow in the following areas:

• freshwater or tidal wetlands or in areas immediately adjacent to such areas where sand and debris may be flushed during rainstorms;
• on top of storm drain catch basins;
• in storm drainage swales;
• on stream or river banks which slope toward the water, where sand and debris can get into the watercourse; and
• in areas immediately adjacent (within at least 100 feet) of private or public drinking water well supplies (due to the possible presence of road salt).

For Governmental Entities: In normal winter conditions, governmental entities should follow the recommended management practices outlined above. In extraordinary winter conditions, the commissioner may, upon public notification, offer governmental entities the flexibility of limited in-water disposal. When such flexibility is offered, governmental entities who have determined that extraordinary circumstances exist where all upland, land-based disposal options have been fully exhausted (i.e., disposal capacity is not available) and snow needs to be removed to meet public safety demands (i.e., clear access ways for police, emergency medical and fire responders), may use certain waterways for snow disposal in accordance with the following conditions:

• Upland storage and disposal of snow (i.e., athletic fields, parks and other flat, open-field sites) and other snow management methods (i.e., snow melting equipment) must be the first alternatives explored and exhausted. Environmentally sensitive areas must be avoided;
• This guidance applies only to snow and ice which is not visibly contaminated with material other than salt and sand from road clearing activities;
• For coastal communities, preference should be given to snow disposal in salt water where available;
• Disposal in rivers or streams must be limited to those water bodies that have adequate flow and mixing and are not prone to ice jams;
• The disposal must occur only in open water in areas that will not interfere with navigation;
• Disposal must be conducted in a manner so as to prevent ice dam formation or damage to bridges, docks or other structures;
• Disposal in ponds and lakes is discouraged;
• There shall be no disposal in coastal or freshwater wetlands, eelgrass beds, vegetated shallows, vernal pools, shellfish beds mudflats, public water supply reservoirs and their tributaries, or others areas designated as being environmentally sensitive;
• The activity must comply with local laws and requirements;
• Precautions must be taken to avoid shoreline or stream bank damage or erosion from truck/equipment activity; and
• Governmental entities must notify the Department by email (address email to kevin.sowa@ct.gov) prior to disposing of snow and ice in waterways or, if advance notification is not possible, then the Department must be contacted as soon as possible after snow disposal has begun.

Notification: Notification can be made by addressing an email to Kevin Sowa at: kevin.sowa@ct.gov. The notification must include the following: (1) the name of the governmental entity making the notification; (2) contact information for the governmental entity including name, email address and phone number; (3) the street address where the snow disposal activity will occur; (4) the name of the waterbody where the snow will be disposed; (5) the estimated quantity of snow to be disposed; (6) the dates during which the disposal activity will occur; and (7) a statement that the governmental entity has exhausted all disposal alternatives and snow management methods and will make best efforts to adhere to these snow disposal guidelines.

Information: For further information please call the Water Permitting and Enforcement Division Engineer of the Day at 860-424-3018.

DEP-PED-GUID-002 Revised 02/04/11

OSHA cites six violations on Wallingford work site

As published via MyRecordJournal.com Wednesday, July 17, 2013 8:13 pm

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

WALLINGFORD - The state Occupational Safety and Health Administration cited the town’s Public Works Department last month for six violations related to work at the town-owned Wooding-Caplan property.

All six were called “serious” by OSHA in the citation sent to the mayor’s office on June 26.

For the full story please see “OSHA cites six violations on Wallingford work site”

To see the 07-17-13 OSHA letter to Mayor Dickinson of June 26, 2013 please follow this link.

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.”

State: Town dumped material without permits

As published in the Record Journal Thursday June 20, 2013

By Eric Heredia
Record-Journal staff
eheredia@record-journal.com
(203) 317-2243
Twitter: @EHerediaRJ

WALLINGFORD - The state filed a notice of violations with the town last week over the dumping of waste in April at the Department of Public Works storage area on North Turnpike Road. The area is in an aquifer protection zone, and the waste, which included some oily substances, raised concerns about potential effects on ground water and nearby wetlands.

The notice says that the Emergency Incident Field Report confirms that a town truck transported solid waste that was dumped at 91 North Turnpike Road, a town storage area also known as “the dog pit.” The DEEP said in late April that the material, including the oily substances, tested as nonhazardous, according to state standards.

Department of Energy and Environmental Protection spokesman Dennis Schain said Wallingford Public Works crews were moving materials collected during various cleanup and maintenance activities and stockpiling them at 91 North Turnpike Road, which is a solid waste permitting violation.

“They don’t have proper permits and authority to bring those materials to that address,” Schain said. Dumping activities have since been shut down.

He said DEEP has already discussed the issue with town officials. The town is now required to put the material into containers and send it to a commercial landfill.

Though the material was ruled nonhazardous, Wallingford’s aquifer regulations identify hazardous materials as “any oil or petroleum” as identified by state statute. The level of Extractable Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons in the material was 1,682 milligrams per kilograms, higher than the reporting level of 50.

State statute requires anyone who unloads oil, petroleum or chemical liquids to report the spill or unloading. Any person who fails to make a report may be fined up to $1,000, and the employer maybe fined up to $5,000. The town has 30 days to respond to DEEP in writing about compliance, Schain said. A civil penalty up to $25,000 is applicable to the violation, however, Schain said that if municipalities work with DEEP, fines normally aren’t imposed.

Wallingford resident William Comerford noticed the material at 91 North Turnpike Road on April 8 and reported it to Environmental Planner Erin O’Hare. Comerford said he took a video of what he found that day.

Comerford brought the video to the attention of the Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Commission during its meeting June 5. Commissioner Jim Heilman wanted to see the video, but Chairman Jim Vitale thought the video should go to DEEP and chose not to show it.

“The gentleman had information I felt was important ... he was describing a situation of potentially significant impact to wetlands and the public water supply, possibly an intentional release,” Heilman said.

Mayor William W. Dickinson Jr. said the only issue that’s important about the spill is that the material was nonhazardous.

Comerford filed another complaint over 91 North Turnpike Road with O’Hare on May 30, saying that he saw a sheen at the base of the wetlands. O’Hare went to the site that day and again June 4. She saw what DEEP determined to be a naturally-occurring bacteria common in wetlands and landfills.

She saw no obvious evidence of release and saw no dead vegetation, which would have been a clear sign of contamination.

Joseph Mrowzowski of the Water Division also went to the site, and O’Hare said he determined that there was no contamination in the wetlands and no need to test the water levels. Water Division General Manager Roger Dann confirmed that.