# Effluent Discharged Into Great Miami River



## Ol' Whiskers (Aug 11, 2004)

24 December 2005


Mr. Ralph E. Reigelsperger 
Director - City of Hamilton Public Works Department
345 High Street 4th Floor
Hamilton, Ohio 45011


RE: EFFLUENT DISCHARGED INTO GREAT MIAMI RIVER

While fishing the Great Miami River, in the City of Hamilton, at locations downstream of the lowhead dam, approximately Latitude 39.37135 x Longitude -84.57034, on 24 December 2005, between the hours of 9:10 AM and 10:25 AM, my son and I were fishing immediately below the wastewater discharge adjacent to the wastewater treatment facility operated by the City of Hamilton at 2451 River Road. (re: satellite image of area described) Having fished just below the dam from 5:30AM to 9:00AM the same morning 








we decided to move downriver about ½-mile to another favorite spot.


OBSERVATION:
We arrived at the 2451 River Road site around 9:10 AM, and there was a terrible odor of sewage noticeable from the parking lot, and from the parking lot we could see the river was running bright red from the east bank to approximately 15 yards midstream, as a result of a discharge of unknown composition from a large (approximately 60-inch diameter) concrete pipe and spillway that appears to be connected to the treatment plant. There were none of the signs, usually visible, of natural river life in the area, as the 2 to 5 Great Blue Herons that fish there regularly had departed, and no fish nor any bottom-dwelling invertebrates were visible either. As we approached, the red discharge continued to emanate from the concrete pipe and spillway, at a rate and velocity enough to push it some yards into the mainstem flow (approximate the rate of discharge from the pipe at 50 to 150cfs, and early morning river gage about ½-mile upstream reported river flow at approximately 1720cfs), presenting a distinct boundary of red color visible in contrast with the clear river green. 








This red coloration appeared to be from some sort of suspended/partially dissolved solid matter, as the slower water on the bank showed the red material settling all over the streambed in areas of little current. 









We attempted to fish in the area anyway, as we had previously been successful without the red flow, and the green, untainted water was within casting reach. We caught no fish, had no bites, and saw no evidence of stream life on the East bank from the spillway to at least 150 yards downstream. At approximately 10:10 AM, we noticed a sudden change in the discharge from the 60-inch pipe. The red effluent had turned to black/gray/brown, flow rate increased, and had a terribly putrid odor. There were visible solid particulates in the discharge, sediment, and waste products appearing to be pulverized paper and other solids. The constituents of the discharge were so thick that you could not see through the liquid, and could not see through the river water into which it mixed at the spillway. 








This discharge continued uninterrupted, and we determined to leave the area at approximately 10:25AM. 










COMMENT:
These discharge events appear to the untrained observer to be distinct, flagrant, and detestable violations of laws, rules and regulation regarding Open Dumping as specified in ORC Sections 3734 and OAC Rules 3745-27 by the operators of the wastewater discharge, as well as delinquent disregard of general common sense and natural resource stewardship values. Furthermore, how could the City of Hamilton allow such wanton disregard for all downstream life, including human life, in a river system that it supposedly promulgates as a recreational facility! I guess the fact that they discharge downstream of the Hamilton pool makes it OK?

I have been fishing the Great Miami River for the last forty years, from Miamitown, to Middletown. This kind of obvious pollution was generally expected in the sixties and seventies, when you could tell what color paper the mills were running by the color in the river. As a kid, I used to catch fish under the Old Colerain Avenue bridge that had big tumors on them, and the river would smell something terrible. I didnt really know any better, then. Lately, I was thinking the river has cleaned up quite a bit, and I have even taught my children to enjoy fishing there. Weve had some enjoyable times at the dam, below the dam, all the way to the Ohio River, and have caught some very nice fish. Weve enjoyed the return of the largemouth and smallmouth basses, walleye and saugeye, white bass, and even catfish, carp, and sheephead provide a great angling challenge. Sadly, I now know why we have days when there are no signs of fish, and can now explain one of the sources of vile colors, foams, and odors on the water. I always said I would never eat a fish from this river, and now my son has first-hand experience to corroborate the feeling. Thats our loss, long-term. Short-term, we were denied the simple pleasure of getting out as a family to enjoy a natural resource that belongs to all of the community. Even if there is a permit for such a discharge (Id like to personally meet the person that authorizes such a nightmare), for a municipality to dump on its downstream neighbors like this is unconscionable. Think of the untold number of people that use the river for recreation (would you be comfortable wading in a cesspool?), or much worse as a source for agriculture, bathing, or drinking water. Please show some credibility and stop dumping in the river.

I am not an activist by any means, although witnessing another discharge such as these into a beautiful river system might just drive me to become one. Please feel free to contact me regarding complete resolution of these disgusting events, to the extent that Hamilton continues to retain the character of the citys past while sharpening its focus on a bright, happy future.

Sincerely,


Dennis J. Malone



3808 Schroeder Drive
Hamilton, OH 45011





cc: 

Mr. Michael J. Samoviski
City Manager  Hamilton, Ohio
345 High Street 7th Floor
Hamilton, OH 45011


Mr. Michael Fremont
Rivers Unlimited
515 Wyoming Ave
Cincinnati, OH 45215

[email protected][url]www.epa.state.oh.us[/url] < [email protected][url]www.epa.state.oh.us[/url]>

http://www.ohiogamefishing.com/

http://www.catfish1.com/




satellite image: Lowhead dam south of downtown Hamilton, downstream to the wastewater treatment plant (10/20/2000 on Terraserver). 

Photo 1: Pre-dawn saugeye taken immediately below the dam. Water conditions were about 38 to 40 degrees, low, and clear to approximately 2 feet visibilty. USGSS Stream gage 03274000 GREAT MIAMI RIVER AT HAMILTON, OH just upstream reported flow at approximately 1810 cubic feet per second, river level at 63.23 ft, with no precipitation.

Photo 2: Red discharge into river at 60-inch wastewater pipe spillway 9:15AM 24 Dec 05

Photo 3: Red sediment settling on riverbed, paper product in the foreground.

Photo 4: Effluent change to black/gray/brown, visibility zero.

Photo 5: Black/grey/brown discharge at 10:25AM 24 Dec 2005



References:
http://www.epa.state.oh.us/dsiwm/document/guidance/gd_036.pdf

http://web.epa.state.oh.us/dsw/rules/01-05.pdf

http://www.hamilton-city.org/


----------



## H2O Mellon (Apr 5, 2004)

Keep us updated on his response.


----------



## Ol' Whiskers (Aug 11, 2004)

Went downtown Hamilton this morning to hand deliver the letter, as it's been sitting in the mailbox since Saturday for pickup. Waiting for that reply.

Nice lady from ECO called yesterday afternoon to give me the EPA emergency hotline and suggested I call them, even though it had been 2 days. I called, got an answering service that wanted the date, time, location, and said they would have someone contact me. No retrun call yet. Received e-mail replies from the Ohio EPA inspector for that facility asking for the pics.

Received e-mails from Rivers Unlimited, Miami Conservancy, and ECO, all asking to be updated. Had several e-mails returned undelivered from links on EPA and environmental sites, and one fellow said I must have misdirected as he only runs a database for the EPA.

It's a darned shame to see this sort of pollution, in this day and age. As a friend of mine says, "IT JUST DON'T MAKE NO SENSE!"

Will keep you posted. 

Maybe a good standalone forum line? Could tie to some sort of national call list.


----------



## Marshall (Apr 11, 2004)

Hey ol wiskers, i work at a wastewater plant just outside of columbus and if we had a mess up it would be brown or grey in color most of the time. That red color is weird looking. But at my plant we only receive domestic sewage and not industrial. It is hard to say what happened. Some industry may have dumped a huge quantity of something on the plant that caused this problem. Next time take a bottle and get a sample if you can and keep it cool. That way you have more evidence. Sadly we cannot control if a paint plant dumps 100,000 gallons of paint thinner down the drain.(Just to give an example) It happens believe me. A wastewater plant is a living biological system which most people don't know. It works like the sponges in a fish tank filter. We grow bacteria that remove ammonia, nitrogens and some places phosphorous from the water. At my plant we add 1 chemical called ferric chloride to remove the phosphorous, the rest is done by growing bacteria that are called nitrifiers that get rid of ammonia and nitrates. (in a nut shell) Interestingly the ferric chloride is a rust red color. It is added in very small amounts but if a spill were to occur it would turn everything red. These tanks should be isolated so they cannot spill into the system. This plant you saw may not even use ferric chloride, some do some don't. But back to the subject on the whole plant being a biological system. If some industry illegally dumps something "toxic" down the drain in large amounts some wastewater plants may not be able to handle it. The toxic load could disturb or completely wipe out your good nitrifying bacteria or bugs as we call them. If this would happen we would have a difficult time converting ammonia and may violate in ammonia and nitrates for a few days till the system recovers. Usually in this case you would not violated solids so the effluent still would appear clear but would have a higher than normal ammonia concentration. Worst case senerio would be the solids not settling out and violating ammonia , nitrate, phosphorous and solids. The effluent would them look brown or grey to the extreme. If it looks grey there is very little treatment, if brown there is some treatment. Keep in mind that im basing this all off my 6 MGD plant i work at. They all are a little different in process and in what type of sewer they receive and how much flow they get. Having violations is a serious deal. The plant superintendants job is on the line if the plant is not making permit. He is supposed to inform the epa if the plant is having a major problem and violating. For instance if the plant was dumpped on with a "toxic" load and the plant cannot handle the problem, then the epa should be called by the plant superintendant. The epa is there to work with the guys at the plant to figure where this load came from and what we are going to do to not let it happen again. THe epa is not always going to fine the plant if someting like a violation occurs because of a toxic load if notified and say hay here is what happened and here is what we are going to do to not let it happen again. Now if it is human error at the plant and people are not doing their job and the plant super knows he is violating and doesn't do anything about it. Thats a different story and epa will take action. 
I take pride in what my plant does in treating the wastewater. I feel a lot of the newer plants are updated and do a good job but some of the older plants that are over capacity struggle at times especially during large rains. This becomes a money issue then. The technology is there to have pristine effluent 95% of the time but it costs money. No one wants their sewer bill to go up, we pay enough for everything else in this world.

Next time you see something like what you saw. Try to go to the plant and talk to someone and see what kind of answers you get. You may get the wool pulled over your eyes but it may make them take action. At least you let them know that the public now knows about the problem.

Hope i was able to help, im not defending the plant in any way. I hate polluters too. Just thought a little background on a wastewater plant could help. Good luck hope you find out what happened . keep us posted.


----------



## Lewzer (Apr 5, 2004)

Interesting read Marshall. Thanks for the info.


----------



## Ol' Whiskers (Aug 11, 2004)

Marshall,

Thanks for the insight. Well written. The plant may be in perfect working order, as designed, and everything kosher. The river was at pool, and there had been no precipitation for the last 3 to 5 days. I understand the stormwater diversion rpoblem to some extent, but these conditions do not suppot the theory here. The plant gates were locked, and no one was around (Christmas Eve). I did not even consider getting samples of the red, then black stuff, as I had no bottles, gloves, and I surely wasn't going to put any part of me in the stuff. I went home and tried to call the numbers in the directory, but got the holiday out of office message. The Hamilton website had an e-mail "Contact Us" page that did not work, and there were no e-mails or emergency phone listed for any Hamilton personnel. This was my first time witnessing such an event. I suppose I could have called 911, but that seems a bit extreme. I called a friend that works for Little Miami Inc, and he put me on to the folks at Rivers Unlimited. They responded on Monday with a suggestion to call the EPA hotline, which I did. I had already copied the EPA on the letter. I have since heard from the EPA inspector for the region, and they are investigating.

In the letter, I allowed that there may be a permit involved. I just think that even a permit for such a disgusting discharge in to a public waterway is not reasonable. If an "accident", there is still some level of accountability, which should point directly up the waste chain in the event of an industrial overload as you describe. I'm not a waste treatment engineer, but I know enough about process development to tell you that an event such as this can be failsafed - at some cost - with FMEA and a bit of ingenuity. I guess it's like the guy on the Fram oil filter commercial, "You can pay me now, or pay me later." We're definitely in the pay later stage, and have been paying now for years. The discharge operator has to be aware fo what's coming out, and should be able to adjust based on what's coming in. 

I've written so much on here and elsewhere about the good fishing in this stretch of the GMR, and that the river seems to have been getting cleaner in the last few years. I've seen this gray/black plume before from downriver, several times in the last few years. Now I know of one source, there may be others. I'm not on a witch hunt, just looking for continuous improvement. The only way is to start by identifying events like this. I figure, if we hadn't been there, it's just business as usual.


----------



## sevenx (Apr 21, 2005)

Ol'whiskers, Thank you for your efforts and taking the time to report on this event. I am new to this river and have only fished it a couple of times. I plan on fishing it more as time allows. We are all stewards of our environment and must work to keep the rivers clean. Let me know if I can help with letter writing or something else we can do to make this problem known and the proper people or buisness be held accountable. Thanks again. S


----------



## Marshall (Apr 11, 2004)

By the time the epa gets out there the plant probably will be working normal again. They should sample at least temperature and pH daily and other tests weekly. There should be some record of what was going through that plant that could tell if there were problems If not falsified. Falsification of documents is a hughe no no for a wastewater operator. Thats the quickest way to loose your certification and job if caught of course.

If it were me i would call the plant and ask for a tour and see whats going on first hand. The plant i work at will give anyone a tour as long as it is scheduled. When i say scheduled i mean if we are in the middle of doing something i cannot stop to run someone through the plant thats curious but will say please come back tomorrow at 9 am and i will be glad to take you through the whole process. If they refuse to show you around then i would be suspicious. We give tours all the time including school class trips. when at the plant ask them to see a copy of their permit. Or ask them to describe their permit. Ask them how many ppm of ammonia, nitrites, nitrates and phosphorous they are allowed daily, weekly and monthly. Ask them what whats their solids limit how many mg/l. also ask how their process works what chemicals they use. Find out what their collection system takes in is it industrial or residential. Our permit requires an operator on site 24/7 even on christmas day. We have emergency numbers that go directly to the operators cell phone for your kind of questions. Ask them who do i call if i see such a thing as you witnessed. Some plants don't have as strict permits as the one i work for and some plants don't have a 24/7 crew. 
I highly doubt that plant had a permit to dump what you saw, odds are it was a violation that was unnoticed because no one was there or it was a mess up they were trying to get away with. Keep on it, hope you get some answers.


----------



## Ol' Whiskers (Aug 11, 2004)

Just to keep you up to date. Thanks for the support, and Happy New Year to
everyone. 

Dennis



> Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 22:24:19 -0500 
> To: Ned Sarle <[email protected]> 
> Subject: Re: EFFLUENT DISCHARGED INTO GREAT MIAMI RIVER 
> Cc: Marianne Piekutowski <[email protected]>, Cathryn Allen <[email protected]> 
> 
> Mr. Sarle, 
> 
> Thank you for investigating some of the observations I noted in my original 
letter (the same three I identified in my call to the EPA Hotline): ODOR; RED 
DISCHARGE; BLACK/GRAY/BROWN DISCHARGE. Your reply did not address all of my concerns. 
> 
> ODOR: I understand the odor present with composted sludge, and I am satisfied with your response regarding the odor problem. Its great that Hamiltons website has an ODOR HOTLINE for its citizens to lean on. The odor doesnt really hurt anyone, at least not the majority of Hamilton residents that live upwind. 
> 
> RED DISCHARGE: Your glancing response to this item leaves me with some 
unanswered questions. I understand how the Hamilton Wastewater Treatment Plant could be loaded by an upstream industrial facility. I do not, however, understand how a single industrial process could overflow the entire sewage plant on a holiday, especially after there had been no precipitation for many days. This is not stormwater runoff. I do not understand how Mohawk Paper could indiscriminately burden the Hamilton WWTP without prior notice, such that WWTP could manage the discharge in a fashion that might not have such a deleterious effect on the river and surrounding wildlife. Now, the questions: 
> 
> A : Does not Mohawk Paper, or Hamilton WWTP, have the obligation to notify the EPA of its intent to exceed any permitted discharge values? Did you know beforehand that they were going to dump this red discharge on Christmas Eve? 
> 
> B: If Mohawk Paper, or Hamilton WWTP, would plan well enough, this 
discharge volume could be evaporated, filtered, or otherwise treated to the 
point of eliminating any burden at all except for a small amount of hazardous 
waste solid landfill. Do Mohawk Paper, Hamilton WWTP, and EPA have a published abatement plan at hand for reduction or elimination of the liquid waste, including milestones occurring in this lifetime (your current answer seems to indicate a resolute "no")? 
> 
> C: Is it easier for Mohawk Paper and Hamilton WWTP to just pay a fine, and only when someone such as myself and my son happen to notice theyre dumping into the river? If Hamilton is paying a fine, then my tax dollars are triply wasted! As I stated in the original, I've seen this river run many different colors for 40 years, so it seems that we're closer to the "business as usual" point than we are to any resolution. If Mohawk has a permit to discharge this "nuisance-causing" by-product, they must know by how much they exceeded their permit. What is the frequency and volume of exceedance for this type of dumping by Mohawk Paper and Hamilton Wastewater Treatment Plant, and what fines have been paid? 
> 
> D: If Mohawk Paper did know it was going to discharge and overload the 
Hamilton Wastewater Treatment Plant, did they warn Hamilton? 
> 
> E: Hamilton Wastewater Treatment Plant has to know what is coming out of its pipe. Why did Hamilton not warn anyone in the area? 
> 
> F: We witnessed the red discharge for one hour. What were the total 
duration, total volume, and chemical/biological makeup of the discharge? 
> 
> G: Do Mohawk Paper, Hamilton Wastewater Treatment Plant, and EPA know what this discharged material does to the river, dependent flora and fauna, and anyone or anything moving through the affected areas, short-term and long-term? It certainly curtailed my ability to pursue and catch any fish. Is there any study, data, MSDS? You are discharging or allowing discharge of these materials over the regional permeable water supply aquifer. Would it not be prudent for the discharging facilities to post warnings, or would a posted warning constitute admission of liability for everyone in the chain of custody of the dumped effluent? 
> 
> H: Would you wade in, apply to your skin, or drink this red discharge, the 
water admixed with the discharge in the river, or the water remaining in the 
river post-discharge  with or without pretreatment? 
> 
> BLACK/GRAY/BROWN DISCHARGE: The sudden change from red to black/gray/brown indicates that at least 2 processes were dumping into the river serially. Your reply did not address this black/gray/brown event. Similar, related questions arise when read against your response to the RED DISCHARGE: 
> 
> I: Did the overload caused by Mohawk Paper (RED DISCHARGE) trigger a 
malfunction of the Hamilton Wastewater Treatment Plant? 
> 
> J: Does the Hamilton Wastewater Treatment Plant have a round-the-clock licensed or certified operator on site, and is the operator responsible for 
monitoring the discharge into the river for violating conditions? How many ppm of ammonia, nitrites, nitrates and phosphorous is Hamilton Wastewater Treatment Plant allowed - daily, weekly and monthly, and what is the limit of solids (mg/l) in the discharge? Is there a warning system for the operator that identifies violating conditions at or near the start of such an event, or does the plant operate after-the-fact? Is the operator responsible for reporting such dumping to the EPA, and in what timeframe? 
> 
> K: We witnessed the black/gray/brown discharge for fifteen minutes. What were the total duration, total volume, and chemical/biological makeup of the discharge? 
> 
> L: Would you wade in, apply to your skin, or drink this black/gray/brown 
discharge, the water admixed with the discharge in the river, or the water 
remaining in the river post-discharge  with or without pretreatment? 
> 
> 
> I will be in the area for a long time to come. I still enjoy fishing when 
there is no dumping. So that I may plan ahead, and possibly be of more 
immediate service in reporting: 
> 
> M: Should I have called 911, as the number to the plant and public works 
departments gave a holiday out of office message? 
> 
> N: As of yet, I have not had the pleasure of a reply from Mr. Reigelsperger at the Department of Public Works in Hamilton, so I'll continue directing my questions your way. Is your reply the official position, or will I be hearing from Hamilton with supporting documentation? 
> 
> O: Think for a minute  If I was the 600-pound gorilla, and I said Mohawk 
Paper and Hamilton Wastewater Treatment Plant had to suspend dumping these hazardous wastes into the river because I wanted the community to be able to use it in a natural setting --- 
> 
> P: Do I need to file an official notarized complaint? 
> 
> Ill not apologize if any of these questions or comments seem pointed, 
leading, or heated, and I won't go away. Ive only now started to get an 
understanding why one of my favorite activities can be curtailed because someone else doesnt want to come into the 21st century. Please continue to reply on this e-mail. 
> 
> Thank you, 
> 
> Dennis Malone 
> 
> 
> RECEIVED Thursday, 29 December 2005 at 2:20pm (reply to my original letter): 

> ---- Ned Sarle <[email protected]> wrote: 
> > Dear Mr. Malone: 
> > 
> > On December 26, 2005, you contact the Ohio EPA about the Hamilton WWTP. You were complaining about the WWTP discharge and the odors at this facility. These conditions were noted while you fished in the Great Miami River on December 24, 2005. 
> > 
> > On December 27, 2005, the Ohio EPA contacted the city of Hamilton (Hamilton) about your complaint. WWTP staff indicated that the noted odors were most likely from the WWTP composting facility. Hamilton was loading composted sludge during the morning of your visit. WWTP odors have been a problem in the past. Hamilton continues to work on minimizing the WWTP odors. The Ohio EPA has noted that Hamilton's past efforts have significantly reduced these odors. However, eliminating all WWTP odors is very difficult due to the nature of the treatment system. 
> > 
> > The red color noted for the WWTP discharge has been an issue that Hamilton has been working on for many years. As indicated, the Hamilton WWTP discharge was a red color on the morning of your visit. A local industry, Mohawk Paper, was producing a color paper that resulted in a red color discharge from the Hamilton WWTP. Altering the color of the Great Miami River to the degree that it produces a nuisance is a violation of their permit to discharge and the State of Ohio's Water Quality Standards. The Ohio EPA is in the process of notifying Hamilton of this violation. The color pass through for the Hamilton WWTP discharge ended later that day. No other permit violations have been noted for their WWTP discharge. 
> > 
> > The color pass through at the Hamilton WWTP has been a problem for many years for two local paper facilities. The WWTP color pass through occurs on an infrequent basis. Hamilton has worked with their local paper facilities to prevent a color pass through at the WWTP. Significant improvements have been noted with the two facilities. The problems of a color pass through have been greatly reduced from previous years. However, additional action is still required to prevent these types of discharges. Unfortunately, a suitable treatment system has not been found by these facilities to completely eliminate the color pass through at the Hamilton WWTP. The Ohio EPA will continue to work with Hamilton and the two local facilities to eliminate these types of discharges. 
> > 
> > Hopefully, this addresses your concerns. If you have any additional 
questions or wish to discuss this further, please contact me by e-mail or by 
phone at (937) 285 - 6096. 
> >


----------



## Mean Morone (Apr 12, 2004)

Don't back down Whiskers. GMR is a beautiful river that has potential to grow large fish of several species. I've fished that river for many years and have always noticed that industry seems to consider it a dumping ground. If you go up around Franklin, West Carollton, and Middletown, you will notice a soapy smell and alot of foam on the water. Not to mention the female sanitory devices, and plastic of somekind that will accumulate on your line. wouldn't eat anything out of that river. It's a shame. Everything from Troy on down is dumping in that river it seems. Again I say don't back down. Let those people know that you aren't the only one that notices changes in the river.


----------



## Marshall (Apr 11, 2004)

I didn't think of a paper mill. Yea those are nasty. I figured it was some industrial issue. Keep at them, you never know. Sounds like the paper mill needs a pretreatment program to me.


----------



## spinfisher (Sep 23, 2005)

Ol' Whiskers,

That is a cogent, articulate and well-researched letter. We'll be interested in the response and the longer-term result. Thanks for all your work.


----------



## Ol' Whiskers (Aug 11, 2004)

Thanks everybody. I just did a bit of net searching and found the VP for Environmental affairs for Mohawk Papers. Sent him the entire thread and requested comments and answers.


----------



## Ol' Whiskers (Aug 11, 2004)

Reply rec'd 4 Jan 06:

---- Ned Sarle <[email protected]> wrote: 
> Dear Mr. Malone:
> 
> I have received your most recent enquiry. The Ohio EPA is in the process of discussing these issues with the City of Hamilton. We are hopeful that we may be able to address your comments in the next week or so. I just wanted to let you know that we are looking into this further.
> 
> If you have any questions, please contact me.
>


----------



## Master Angler (May 26, 2004)

All I can say is stay on the case - esp. on the gov't workers. I won't belabor you with my story but I will say it took FOUR YEARS for the US army corps of engineers to get back to me. Unfortunately, I missed the call and haven't heard back despite repeated messages. Remember - all of the government agencies are on the side of business - they are as much an enemy as the polluters (not joking)...good luck and keep us up to date.


----------



## billybob7059 (Mar 27, 2005)

its great all the work you did. This just gos to show you that the "little guy" can make a difference if he yells. good jod. Thanks for looking out for Ohio's waters.


----------



## Young Whiskers (Feb 23, 2005)

MOHAWK
MOHAWK FINE PAPERS
The Beckett Mill
400 Dayton Street
Hamilton, OH 45011
513 896 2500
www.mohawkpaper.com

January 4, 2006

Mr. Dennis J. Malone


Dear Mr. Malone:

On December 30th, 2005, you contacted Mr. George Milner via Mohawk Fine Papers' website requesting feedback on questions you submitted to Mr. Ned Sarle of Ohio EPA concerning your observations of the Great Miami River on December 24th. I'm Vice President and General Manager for Mohawk Fine Papers' operations in Ohio, including the Beckett paper mill in Hamilton, Ohio, and I want to respond to your concern.

On December 29th we became aware of your observations when Hamilton's Department of Public Works issued a Notice of Violation (NOV) of City of Hamilton Sewer Regulations to our facility related to the red color noted in your observations. Although there are many industrial and commercial operations that feed into the City's wastewater treatment plant, city regulators believe that our Beckett Mill was the source of the red tint that you observed. The NOV requires a response to the City regarding circumstances that may have contributed to a color passthrough event, and we immediately began a re-examination of our operating records and interviewing operators, supervisors and engineers associated with our effluent operations on the 23rd and 24th. As mentioned by Mr. Sarle in his response to your letter, we have made dramatic improvements over the last 10 years in our ability to make colored paper without passing tinted water on to the City's wastewater treatment plant, and we take management of this part of our operation very seriously. Any findings from our investigation of this incident will definitely be
used to continue to improve our systems for controlling effluent color.

The improvements we have made, and will continue to make, are done in close consultation with the City and State environmental authorities. We have a resolute commitment to comply with all environmental requirements and to go beyond those requirements to continually reduce our environmental footprint in the communities where we operate. One example of our commitment to environmental stewardship is the Beckett Mill's participation in US EPA's Performance Track Program. Performance Track is a voluntary partnership with EPA that, in their words, "recognizes top environmental performance among participating U.S. facilities of all types, sizes, and complexity, public and private". "Program partners are providing leadership in many areas, including preventing pollution at its source." Our Beckett mill is one of only 14 members of this program in Ohio, with only 370 facilities in this program nationwide. Participation in the program requires a solid Environmental Management System, sustained compliance with regulations, and demonstrated results in improving environmental performance beyond what's required by regulation. (http://www.epa.gov/performancetrack/)

MOHAWK
MOHAWK FINE PAPERS


The Beckett Mill became part of Mohawk Fine Papers in May of 2005, and the corporate commitment of Mohawk to be a good environmental citizen is among the highest I've seen. I hope you took the opportunity to study some of the materials regarding environmental stewardship during your visit to our corporate web site, but I'd like to point you to one document
in particular,
(http://www.mohawkpaper.com/about/html/environment/EnvStewardshipBrochure.pdf). While this document was produced before we became part of Mohawk, the messages in it apply fully to the Beckett Mill.

An example of how Mohawk has shared it's environmental citizenship commitment with the Beckett Mill can be seen in our use of electricity generated by wind power. Mohawk is the only paper company in the U.S. to use wind energy to manufacture paper. In 2004, Mohawk first began using the pollution-free alternative energy source for its Cohoes, New York, plant. Then, on June 1, 2005, following acquisition of the Fine Papers business from lnternationa! Paper,
Mohawk negotiated a contract to purchase an additional 35 million kWh's of wind powered energy for its newly acquired Beckett Mill in Hamilton. This commitment to wind energy allowed
Mohawk to join the highest level of EPA Green Power Partnership Leadership Club as well as earning a ranking (#16) in the EPA List of Top 25 U.S. Green Power Purchasers.
Mohawk's annual purchase of 45 million kWh's of wind energy offsets 21 percent of the electricity used at Mohawk Fine Papers' two New York mills and 50 percent of the electricity used at its Beckett Mill. Currently Mohawk manufactures five of its brands entirely with
windpower.

I hope you won't assume that these examples are just "corporate speak". The employees of the Beckett Mill, and the owners and leaders of Mohawk Fine Papers are truly committed to excellence in environmental performance. Are we perfect yet? No, but our approach to significant continuous improvement gets us closer every day. We take your concerns very seriously and will work closely with the City of Hamilton and Ohio EPA to address them.

Best regards,

[signature]

Ronald B. Raley 
Vice President & General Manager, Ohio Operations



cc: Darla Crum, City of Hamilton
George Milner, Mohawk


----------



## Ol' Whiskers (Aug 11, 2004)

That was Ol' Whiskers in the last post - Kevin must have left his login on my PC.


----------



## Ol' Whiskers (Aug 11, 2004)

7 January 2006


MOHAWK FINE PAPERS
The Beckett Mill
400 Dayton Street
Hamilton, OH 45011

Mr. Ronald B. Raley 
Vice President & General Manager, Ohio Operations


Dear Mr. Raley:

Thank you for your 4 January response to my 30 December 05 electronic contact with Mr. Milner. In that contact, I submitted text of mail and e-mail to Mr. Reigelsperger at Hamilton Department of Public Works, and Mr. Sarle of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, in which were noted observations and questions pertaining to the conditions my son and I observed from the discharge located at 2451 River Road (Hamilton Wastewater Treatment Plant) into the Great Miami River on 24 December 2005. I was not able to include photographs of the effluent and affected areas by using the Mohawk Paper website. If you have not yet seen and wish to have these photos for reference, please advise and I will forward, electronically or as hardcopies. Your reply touches on the red colored effluent observed dumping from the wastewater discharge for at least one hour, but does not answer the questions I posed. While I cannot expect Mohawk Paper to answer for Hamiltons process, I would appreciate an attempt at specifically addressing each question in the submission pertaining to Mohawk individually. I eagerly await a more detailed reply.

The red color noted in my observations, termed pass through by OEPAs Mr. Sarle and yourself, and additionally nuisance, has a tremendous and immediate negative effect on the river and seemingly all life contacted by the effluent stream. The river area around and downstream of the discharge is normally home to game fish and rough fish, and there are usually as many a five Great Blue Herons fishing in the riffles for the abundant baitfish and crustaceans, as well as several species of duck feeding and swimming. There are no fish, baitfish, crustaceans, birds, or any other visible creatures in the affected area during the discharge. The river water, which above the discharge was clear to a depth of 2 feet that day, ran a brilliant red from the dumping, and seemed to precipitate red sediment onto the downstream riverbed as well. What you have done here is to change the rivers system of life support. Fish cannot see, as you have changed the solar spectral transmission characteristics of the water; these fish also cannot efficiently replenish their supply of oxygen, as you have introduced a chemical irritant. Birds cannot feed where there are no fish. Last and least, we cannot catch fish where there are none present.

I consider this much more than a nuisance. I, as every citizen of the watershed community, have the right to use the Great Miami River area resource in a non-affected state. That is to say, we should be able to fish a natural streamflow, without chemical or biological attack. We should be able to wade in the water without worrying what it might do to our clothing, equipment, our persons, and our future health. We should be able to expect that this river is available to our sons and daughters, without concern. 

Your response states, Any findings from our investigation of this incident will definitely be used to continue to improve our systems for controlling effluent color. With regard to controlling the effluent color, I have read your US EPA Performance Track Membership Application submitted by International Paper in 2005 (https://yosemite.epa.gov/opei/ptrack.nsf/vApplicationViewPrintView/19A27A6329DC8CF885256F5600046D1A). It shows a pre-Mohawk corporate commitment to decrease in hypochlorite bleach used to decolor the effluent, from a 2003 baseline of 83,700 pounds to a projected 2007 volume of 71,145 pounds. While this decrease is absolutely commendable, it appears to be indexed to annual production of A1 paper tonnage, such that an increase in paper production will result in a proportional increase in hypochlorite bleach discharged into the river. Presuming the red discharge was not treated to control the color, would a treated discharge then contain the same materials and include hypochlorite bleach, sans color? Why do you need to discharge 35 tons or more of hypochlorite bleach into the river annually? By the way, were you discharging bleached effluent on 31 December 05, as I was at the same site from 2:00 to 2:30PM and the acrid smell was very evident. The only difference was the river level had risen about four feet, with flow approximately 5 times normal, making visual determination of the discharge constituents virtually impossible.

The same questions are necessary regarding projected release into the Great Miami River of 1,377,510 pounds (2007) of suspended solids, 26,528 pounds of toxic release inventory (TRI Form R) chemicals (2003 reported), and any heavy metals not included in the above. Why does this toxic material have to be dumped into the waterway at all? Question 3 of Section B: TELL US ABOUT YOUR EMS asks: Have you classified your aspects based on their potential harm to the environment, on community concerns, and/or on other objective factors (i.e., have you determined your significant aspects)?: Your answer was, YES. Please share your assessment cited, with respect to environmental harm and of community concerns, particularly the effects of your discharge of these materials into the local recreational waterway and short-term and long-term effects on downstream life. I do address this in my concerns in the letter to Mr. Sarle at OEPA, as well.

Your response also directs me to a Mohawk Paper brochure outlining the corporate environmental citizenship commitment (http://www.mohawkpaper.com/about/html/environment/EnvStewardshipBrochure.pdf) and you state that the messages in it apply fully to the Beckett Mill. You cite examples of use of electricity generated by wind power as a pollution-free alternative energy source for Mohawks Cohoes, New York, plant. And the Beckett Mill in Hamilton, which allowed Mohawk to join the highest level of EPA Green Power Partnership Leadership Club as well as earning a ranking (#16) in the EPA List of Top 25 U.S. Green Power Purchasers. Mohawk's annual purchase of 45 million kWhr of wind power is very commendable, but is also indicative of the easy way for Mohawk to get on the green side. An Internet search turned up an article adjacent to the Mohawk story wherein a description of wind-generated energy costs is compared to older technologies 

In reality, all energy sources are subsidized by the public at varying levels. With current incentives for wind, the cost per kilowatt hour (KWhr) is comparable to the electricity from coal or gas plants. Under New Yorks current green marketing options, the premium for wind power is 2.5 cents per KWhr. 
(http://www.eany.org/capitolwatch/votersguide/vg2005/oil_slick.html) 

The Mohawk brochure fairly substantiates the observation as it goes on, According to George Milner, Mohawk's senior vice president, energy, environmental and governmental affairs"There is a misconception that choosing the environmentally correct path costs a lot more," notes Milner, "but with the technological advances in windmills, the cost of wind power is within range of traditional energy sources. 

So, realistically, the purchase of electric power generated in upstate New York only offsets the generation of coal-fired energy produced for the Hamilton mill, and there is no real benefit to air quality in our locality. Not that I begrudge our friends up there anything, but it all stays in New York. I even thought I heard Governor Pataki on CSPAN this week proposing a statewide tax-free zone for companies around the world that develop green energy sources. What a coup for the corporation.

In the same brochure, According to Thomas D. O'Connor, Jr., Mohawk's chairman and CEO, "Our commitment to environmental excellence has sustained -- even propelled us -- to where we are today. Response to our Wind Power Portfolio has opened up new markets with customers committed to preserving the earth's natural resources."

"This [wind energy] is a highly visible way to demonstrate our commitment to environmental stewardship," says George Milner, Senior VP, Energy, Environmental and Governmental Affairs. "Customers are responding favorably to Mohawk's commitment. Corporate buyers, in particular, continue to seek ways to make their own sustainability initiatives visible to their customers, shareholders and other interested parties. Printing corporate and marketing messages on paper made with non-polluting windpower is a way to demonstrate commitment to sustainable business practices."

Mohawk has a longstanding tradition of striving for environmental excellence in all aspects of its business and is today purchasing windpower for 38 percent of its electric energy requirements.
(http://www.mohawkpaper.com/about/html/press/press_releases/2005_0812.htm)

Dont stop there  use the springboard you got from wind, profits you get from expanded sales due to wind, recycling and solid waste landfill, and elect to do the right thing here for water in Hamilton, Ohio. Build a process that uses the local natural resources in a manner that affords the same access to all of the community, without concern.

Take a closer look at the stewardship brochure to which you directed me (I had reviewed it, and the US EPA Performance Track Application, prior to making contact with your company). Ask the young person pictured swimming in a pristine waterway if they would trade location, and swim in the Great Miami where this effluent enters the river. Ask Mr. Milner, in his pensive pose along the Hudson River, if he would mind striking the same profile in front of the Hamilton wastewater discharge flowing red for miles downstream. How would those images affect customers committed to preserving the earths natural resources? Where are we on the corporate speak issue?

I am in contact with Hamilton Wastewater Treatment Plant, and have asked for similar response regarding their portion and responsibility, and potential interrelationship of both the red and black/gray/brown effluent discharges, described in my letter of 24 December 05. I would really like to start receiving some straight answers from the responsible parties. Im certain there are others like me that would appreciate improved, consistent fishing and other recreational uses of the river, and still others human and otherwise that will greatly benefit from the restoration of this river to its natural water quality. 

I know Mohawk Paper is not the only point source polluter in the watershed. I dont deny that you have made advances in the general preservation of the environment in Mohawk plants, but Ive seen the Great Miami River run many colors and with many odors, for forty years, most downstream of this pipe. I have had numerous fishing excursions cut short or altogether denied by such dumping. I have now found one source, though, and eliminating one is the next best step toward eliminating all. Its not a sewer, decades of dumping notwithstanding. Given time, and careful stewardship, the Great Miami River can heal itself, if left alone. Maybe youll help by stepping up, to uphold the opening statement in the Mohawk environmental stewardship brochure, Environmental leadership requires a willingness to test uncharted waters.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,




Dennis J. Malone


cc: 
riversunlimited.org

miamiconservancy.org

ohiogamefishing.com

catfish1.com


----------



## ashtonmj (May 3, 2004)

Wow...bravo is all I can say to you sir. I was really hoping after reading the first response you posted that you would rebute to him becuase he gave you nothing but corporate speak (his own addmission in the fact he says you hope it isn't that when it obviously is) and did not answer your questions as you pointed out, only half heartedly saying that they are investigating before he goes right into his PR campaign. I commend you highly, as we all should here, for doing the responsible and right thing in an incredibly intelligent manor.


----------



## Muskeye (Apr 12, 2004)

Whiskers,

The paper plant is probably regulated under federal pretreatment standards, most likely their permit reflects discharge limits found in 40 CFR Part 430 Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Point Source Category. Federal parameters regulated would be pentachlorophenol, trichlorophenal, and possibly zinc. The plant also must meet local limits that include heavy metals, cyanide, pH, hydrocarbon FOG, phenol, among other possible pollutants.

In reviewing the criteria for inclusion in the National Environmental Performance Track Program, the facility may have their membership card pulled. For example, the absence of Significant Non Compliance (SNC) is one criteria that must be met. Please refer to 40 CFR 403.8 (vii) for the SNC definition. Also, the facility may not have what's classified as "significant" violations but that may not include other discharge violations that aren't included as "significant", possibly defined as over ten times the limit. 

The questions you should be asking the paper plant and Hamilton are:

1. How often do they sample their effluent?
2. Does the facility or an independent perform the sampling?
3. How often does either Hamilton or OEPA sample the facility's effluent?
4. Historical compliance with discharge limits? 
5. Did Hamilton's plant experience discharge violations? I believe that the plant must sample daily and report any violations of their NPDES permit.

If the plant's discharge is only sampled ,say twice per year, in my opinion, that is a small window of reviewable data. Sometimes this is the case if a municipality does not have their own Pretreatment Program and compliance and enforcement is performed at the State level (OEPA). Staffing at the State level is limited and sometimes they're spread pretty thin. Possibly the only effluent sampling is performed by the company semi-annually. 

In all fairness to the company, even the most conscientious companies experience an occasional upset. Hopefully this plant is one of them. 

You seem well versed and informed. Your efforts should be applauded. 

Rick


----------



## Ol' Whiskers (Aug 11, 2004)

13 January 2006 


City of Hamilton 
Wastewater Treatment Plant 
2451 River Rd. 
Hamilton, OH 45011 


Mr. Ted Finan  Superintendent 

I am writing to follow up with you regarding our phone conversation of Monday, 9 January. I must apologize for the delay, as I am currently beset by a medical condition that somewhat precludes being timely about anything. We discussed my submission to Mr. Reigelsperger on 24 December 05 regarding effluent discharges into the Great Miami River, and you have seen the pictures attached to the letter (I can supply the original high-resolution digital images, approximately 30 shots, if you need them for reference.). You allowed that the red effluent was a result of a "boil out" of process machinery late in the day on 23 December at Mohawk Paper, and that your plant had seen similar effluent of various colors before from Mohawk. This coloration was determined by a night shift operator to pose not significant enough of a risk to warrant pretreatment. You allowed that the discharges were violations of state and federal EPA regulations and permitted values because my son and I observed and reported them. I was somewhat confused by this one-way characterization and asked, if there would have been no one present to see and report, would there still be a violation. Your reply here seemed to be indeterminate. I asked if you ever received advance notice of such discharges from Mohawk, and you suggested you did. I asked if you could have collected the effluent and done something else with it, and you stated that you might have collected it in a holding tank, if one had been available, and then "trickled it into the river" so as not to be noticeable. We discussed previous Mohawk efforts to decolorize the red (and blue in some earlier outfalls) dye with hypochlorite bleach. You said the HWTP keeps a stock of sodium bisulphite for neutralization of the bleach, and if you know it's coming can effect a change in the Ph of the outfall. You did not say whether Mohawk or Hamilton pays for such treatment. We also discussed values for solids, hypochlorite bleach, and dyes disclosed in Mohawk Paper's US EPA Performance Track Membership Application, and you stated that these values were comparatively so low as to not present a problem unless someone such as myself reported a complaint. You also asserted that the black/gray/brown discharge I described and photographed "could not happen" from Hamilton Wastewater Treatment Plant, that it was not a violation, and the pictures I supplied were not definitive enough to determine a violation. Although I had not reported foam, we discussed foams and suds we had both seen in the river on various occasions, and noted that there are many biological and protein substances that can cause foaming in a situation where agitation occurs. We ended by agreeing to get together again, with your invitation for a plant tour and discussion. 

I do want to thank you for the invitation you extended to me, and my to son, to tour the Hamilton Wastewater Treatment Plant, and also for the initial discussion we had regarding the events described in the letter to Mr. Reigelsperger. You also stated that Mr. Sarle and others of OEPA would like to be available for the tour as well. 

I think thats an outstanding idea! However, since we have had only one verbal contact, I am left with no definitive answers to some of the basic questions I posed to Mr. Reigelsperger in the original submission, nor to those presented to Mr. Sarle in several e-mails, nor to those submitted in two letters to Mohawk Papers Messrs. Milner and Raley. In order for the proposed tour to have significant depth and breadth of meaning relative to the events of 24 December 05, I would like you to provide answers in advance to those questions within your scope of information. Then, armed with adequate information, I will be able to focus on your presentation during the tour, and not introduce undue delay with repetitive questioning for you or anyone else that may accompany us. Your initial message said that you had been chasing my e-mails all week. You seem to be the delegated subject matter expert of the group now, so I will list the same questions again herein, to help you begin gathering the answers: 


From 24 Dec letter to Mr. Reigelsperger: 
These discharge events appear to the untrained observer to be distinct, flagrant, and detestable violations of laws, rules and regulation regarding Open Dumping as specified in ORC Sections 3734 and OAC Rules 3745-27 by the operators of the wastewater discharge, as well as delinquent disregard of general common sense and natural resource stewardship values. Furthermore, how could the City of Hamilton allow such wanton disregard for all downstream life, including human life, in a river system that it supposedly promulgates as a recreational facility! I guess the fact that they discharge downstream of the Hamilton pool makes it OK? 


From 29 December 2005 e-mail reply to Mr. Sarle,: 
Red Discharge:
A : Does not Mohawk Paper, or Hamilton WWTP, have the obligation to notify the EPA of its intent to exceed any permitted discharge values? Did you know beforehand that they were going to dump this red discharge on Christmas Eve? 

B: If Mohawk Paper, or Hamilton WWTP, would plan well enough, this discharge volume could be evaporated, filtered, or otherwise treated to the point of eliminating any burden at all except for a small amount of hazardous waste solid landfill. Do Mohawk Paper, Hamilton WWTP, and EPA have a published abatement plan at hand for reduction or elimination of the liquid waste, including milestones occurring in this lifetime (your current answer seems to indicate a resolute "no")? 

C: Is it easier for Mohawk Paper and Hamilton WWTP to just pay a fine, and only when someone such as myself and my son happen to notice theyre dumping into the river? If Hamilton is paying a fine, then my tax dollars are triply wasted! As I stated in the original, I've seen this river run many different colors for 40 years, so it seems that we're closer to the "business as usual" point than we are to any resolution. If Mohawk has a permit to discharge this "nuisance-causing" by-product, they must know by how much they exceeded their permit. What is the frequency and volume of exceedance for this type of dumping by Mohawk Paper and Hamilton Wastewater Treatment Plant, and what fines have been paid? 

D: If Mohawk Paper did know it was going to discharge and overload the Hamilton Wastewater Treatment Plant, did they warn Hamilton? 

E: Hamilton Wastewater Treatment Plant has to know what is coming out of its pipe. Why did Hamilton not warn anyone in the area? 

F: We witnessed the red discharge for one hour. What were the total duration, total volume, and chemical/biological makeup of the discharge? 

G: Do Mohawk Paper, Hamilton Wastewater Treatment Plant, and EPA know what this discharged material does to the river, dependent flora and fauna, and anyone or anything moving through the affected areas, short-term and long-term? It certainly curtailed my ability to pursue and catch any fish. Is there any study, data, MSDS? You are discharging or allowing discharge of these materials over the regional permeable water supply aquifer. Would it not be prudent for the discharging facilities to post warnings, or would a posted warning constitute admission of liability for everyone in the chain of custody of the dumped effluent? 

H: Would you wade in, apply to your skin, or drink this red discharge, the water admixed with the discharge in the river, or the water remaining in the river post-discharge  with or without pretreatment? 




BLACK/GRAY/BROWN DISCHARGE: The sudden change from red to black/gray/brown indicates that at least 2 processes were dumping into the river serially. Your reply did not address this black/gray/brown event. Similar, related questions arise when read against your response to the RED DISCHARGE: 

I: Did the overload caused by Mohawk Paper (RED DISCHARGE) trigger a malfunction of the Hamilton Wastewater Treatment Plant? 

J: Does the Hamilton Wastewater Treatment Plant have a round-the-clock licensed or certified operator on site, and is the operator responsible for monitoring the discharge into the river for violating conditions? How many ppm of ammonia, nitrites, nitrates and phosphorous is Hamilton Wastewater Treatment Plant allowed - daily, weekly and monthly, and what is the limit of solids (mg/l) in the discharge? Is there a warning system for the operator that identifies violating conditions at or near the start of such an event, or does the plant operate after-the-fact? Is the operator responsible for reporting such dumping to the EPA, and in what timeframe? 

K: We witnessed the black/gray/brown discharge for fifteen minutes. What were the total duration, total volume, and chemical/biological makeup of the discharge? 

L: Would you wade in, apply to your skin, or drink this black/gray/brown discharge, the water admixed with the discharge in the river, or the water remaining in the river post-discharge  with or without pretreatment? 


I will be in the area for a long time to come. I still enjoy fishing when there is no dumping. So that I may plan ahead and possibly be of more immediate service in reporting: 

M: Should I have called 911, as the number to the plant and public works departments gave a holiday out of office message? 

N: As of yet, I have not had the pleasure of a reply from Mr. Reigelsperger at the Department of Public Works in Hamilton, so I'll continue directing my questions your way. Is your reply the official position, or will I be hearing from Hamilton with supporting documentation? 

O: Think for a minute  If I was the 600-pound gorilla, and I said Mohawk Paper and Hamilton Wastewater Treatment Plant had to suspend dumping these hazardous wastes into the river because I wanted the community to be able to use it in a natural setting --- 

P: Do I need to file an official notarized complaint? 


I await your reply. Please contact me at your earliest convenience to finalize our plans for the tour. 

Sincerely, 



Dennis J. Malone 
3808 Schroeder Dr. 
Hamilton, OH 45011 


cc: 
Mr. Reigelsperger
Mr. Sarle  e-mail
Mr. Raley


----------



## Ol' Whiskers (Aug 11, 2004)

Last Monday evening I stopped for gas, and noticed the Hamilton Journal front page headline showing Mohawk CEO to address Chamber of Commerce at the Hamiltonian. Looked it up on the papers website, and sure enough, the keynote speaker at the $45-a-plate dinner was Mr. Thomas OConnor, President and CEOof Mohawk Paper. A brief description of his address in the article tended toward all of the improvements they have made at the Hamilton mill, the companys relationship with the city, and the $1 million capital just spent on technology. Since I had not yet heard back from the mill manager, I thought Id get right to the top, and to the public that are closest to the issues. I had a doctors appointment this morning just around the corner, so I stopped at the hotel, and dropped off a copy of everything I had written and received, for the attention of Mr. OConnor. In order to be fair about the distribution, I also delivered a copy of same to the offices of Mr. Ryan, the Mayor of Hamilton, and to Mr. Craig, president of the Greater Hamilton Chamber of Commerce.

I got off work a half-hour early and made the 55-mile drive, stationed myself outside on the sidewalk at 5:45 this evening, armed with copies of the same materials I sent these folks. As people were arriving, I asked if they were there for the dinner, and then inquired if theyd be interested in having some information regarding a recent environmental issue involving Hamilton and Mohawk. Some people were glad to accept, and others refused saying they worked for Mohawk. One lady said she works for Mohawk, and knew all she needed to know. When I asked for details, she said that the story was all over the plant and there was there was a big investigation under way.

About 6:10, a fellow came out and asked, Are you the fisherman? I recognized Mr. OConnor from his picture in their Environmental Stewardship brochure, and introduced myself. We discussed the basics of my complaint, and that I had not heard a detailed reply to my questions from any of the entities (Mohawk, Hamilton, OEPA). Mr. OConnor acknowledged that the mill was in receipt of a Notice of Violation from OEPA, and admitted the red effluent was theirs. He was very surprised to hear that there was sewage flowing after the red effluent. He assured me there was an investigation ongoing, and said the mills in NY dont operate that way  his company just purchased the Beckett Mill in Hamilton last Spring. He also said they were about to begin using a new type of dye that did not leave color in the effluent. I stated that my real problem was anyone dumping in the river at all, and mentioned the fish consumption advisory. We chatted for about 20 minutes, and he assured me that Mohawk will work to the level of environmental stewardship they portray in their brochure and white paper. He allowed that their permit did not include direct discharge into the river, but only into the Hamilton Wastewater Treatment Plant. He also said he was not familiar with the workings at that plant, but would be investigating. I have to give Mr. OConnor credit for coming out to talk and for listening receptively. I get the impression that he is serious about fixing the problem  well see. No one representing the City of Hamilton approached, and I have not yet had a reply to my last letter or the materials I delivered this morning. 

I did receive a call from Mr. Sarle of OEPA, and on Monday had a general discussion about the conditions observed during the red and black discharge events on Christmas Eve, potential causes, and the proposed wastewater treatment plant tour. I tried to discuss a timeline of events that seems to show the hours involved just dont add up the way Mr. Finan of HWTP explains it. Mr. Sarle said he only handles inspection for the Hamilton Wastewater Treatment plant, and if I wanted specifics regarding Mohawk I needed to speak to someone else in his office  Im reluctant at this point to engage another party until someone starts an attempt at answering whats on the table now. I repeated to him my request for some answers from Hamilton, and suggested he urge them to reply in writing prior to any tour.

More later.


----------



## Marshall (Apr 11, 2004)

Wow nice follow up. Im sure you had their attention at the dinner passing out information. Sorry i havn't got back to you sooner but it was nice to meet ya and you definately are a dedicated concerned citizen doing whats right to protect our fisherys. Good Job. Sounds like the the hornets nest is disturbed and your answers will soon be here.


----------



## Ol' Whiskers (Aug 11, 2004)

Wednesday, February 15, 2006 10:36 AM 

---- [email protected] wrote: 

Mr. Malone:

I apologize for the late response, but I understand OEPA discussed your concerns shortly after you reported them. OEPA is responsible for regular monitoring of wastewater treatment plants, conducting periodic inspections, monitoring compliance, and other direct contact with treatment plant operators. OEPA has noted a violation of the color of the effluent from the plant on the day you observed it. The color was the result of a discharge from a paper company into the City's sewer system. The City has a pretreatment program, and issues permits to industrial users specifying limits for discharges into the City's sewer system. The City has also cited the paper company for a violation of its industrial pretreatment permit.

OEPA is continuing to monitor the situation, and should you note other similar occurrences, please contact OEPA at its toll free complaint line (1-800-686-8930), at its Spills Hotline (1-800-282-9378), or via its web
site. You can of course also contact us. 

Thank you for taking the time to report your observations.

Duane
=================================================
Duane Heaton
USEPA Region 5
Water Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Section 1
77 W. Jackson Blvd. (WC-15J)
Chicago, IL 60604-3590
312-886-6399; fax 312-886-0168
[email protected]
=================================================

----- Forwarded by Duane Heaton/R5/USEPA/US on 02/15/2006 08:29 AM -----

Thomas Bramscher/R5/USEPA/US 
02/01/2006 03:57PM
To Duane Heaton/R5/USEPA/[email protected] 
cc 
Subject : ACTION NEEDED: Commitment assigned to you 

You have been assigned the following task:

Complainer: Dennis J Malone

Type(s) of complaint: Illegal Discharges/Practices

Please click the link at the end of this message to open your commitment.
The attached complaint was received via the ORC complaint button on the
Internet. 

Can you respond to this complaint? If so, please inform the citizen of
Your follow-up actions at [email protected] and CC me for tracking purposes.

Please be aware that some type of response is necessary, even if your program
is unable to offer any assistance. In this case, please inform me of this and
recommend another program, if possible.

If this is a multi-media issue, please correspond with the other Branch Chiefs.

Thank you!

NOTE: Please notify me if this is not something that you will be able to
address, and if possible, recommend a contact person.

COMPLAINT BELOW:

----- Forwarded by Jodi Swanson-Wilson/R5/USEPA/US on 12/30/2005 01:32
PM -----

Dennis Malone <[email protected] 
12/26/2005 02:16 PM


To: Complaints [email protected]
cc
Subject: EFFLUENT DISCHARGED INTO GREAT MIAMI RIVER


----------



## Ol' Whiskers (Aug 11, 2004)

Date: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 11:44 PM 
From: [email protected] 

To: [email protected] 

cc: [email protected] 

Subject: Re: City of Hamilton WWTP 
15 February 2006 

Mr. Heaton: 

Thank you for responding to my original submission of 26 December 2005, which was carbon copied to your office via webmail. The letter, to Mr. Ralph Reigelsperger, Director of Public Works, Hamilton, Ohio, itemized observations associated with several incidents of open dumping into the Great Miami River. My son and I witnessed these events while fishing last Christmas Eve. 

You are correct in the fact that OEPAs Mr. Ned Sarle and I have exchanged 
several e-mails and one phone call concerning these events. However, you might not yet know that I am not satisfied with the responses received to date, not in the e-mails from Mr. Sarle, nor in the registered letter from Mr. Ron Raley, Plant Manager for Mohawk Paper Beckett Mill, nor in the one phone conversation I have had with Mr. Ted Finan, Superintendent of Hamilton Wastewater Treatment Plant. Mr. Finan offered a tour of HWTP, accompanied by Mr. Sarle and others from OEPA, which I formally deferred until they answer the questionsi have already posed. Not one of these persons has answered questions submitted directly, in writing. Sketchy verbal responses to date are obfuscatory at best. I have attached some of the e-mail and letters for your review. Lately, I have submitted the entire content of this exchange to Mr. Don Ryan, Mayor of Hamilton, Ohio, and have yet to receive a response. 

I dont understand what they are so afraid of. Is there some legal precedent 
for not responding to a written request in writing? Should not the answers to 
most of my questions be part of the public record? Dont you all work for me, 
figuratively, Mr. Raley notwithstanding? Do they think Ill just go away if the 
wait gets too long? 

I met Mr. Thomas OConnor, Chairman and CEO of Mohawk Paper, outside a Hamilton Chamber of Commerce dinner on 27 January 06. He and I discussed the events witnessed and my concerns for the environmental conditions in the Great Miami River watershed area. In a subsequent letter to Mr. OConnor, I reiterated my concerns. I have not received a reply from Mr. OConnor. Im inserting an excerpt of my letter to him here for your review: 

 
I wanted to make another point, if youll allow me a moment, relative to 
Mohawks responsibility in the discharge events we witnessed on Christmas Eve. I believe your mill effluent may have been entirely within the law, depending on Hamilton Wastewater Treatment Plant to further process into compliance. I have picked up bits and pieces from the deconstructed conversations with yourself, Mr. Sarle (OEPA), and Mr. Finan (HWTP) to set a timeline that just doesn't add up. I have included in this letter a theory regarding a possible failure in the system. You are the new guy in the loop, and at least you are now involved. Mohawk cant do anything about 75 years of Hamilton history, but you can clean up your part 

Mr. Finan tells me that if they had known the dye flow was coming, they might have caught it in a tank if one was available. He said they have looked at Mohawk's log and see a 23 Dec "boilout" starting around 2145 and ending around 2330, and that it takes about 3 hours to run the sewer from Mohawk to HWTP. He made reference to the "operator not thinking it looked that dark," but I didn't get whether he was referring to an operator at Mohawk or HWTP. He also described previous problems Mohawk has had with dye coloration in the river, notably that some of the deep blues are the most difficult from which to remove red components. He says HWTP keeps a supply of sodium bisulphite to neutralize pH from the hypochlorite bleach used to decolor the dye. Also, HWTP would have "trickled [the dye] into the river so as not to be noticeable." This all tends to demonstrate a hands-on history between Mohawk and HWTP. 

Mr. Sarle tells me it takes about 12 hours for inflow to traverse the HWTP 
process. He somewhat acknowledged that HWTP is responsible for looking at the CSO for color violation. He suggested the black/gray/brown flow (sewage - I have not used this term with any of these folks, yet) might have been entrained natant from the sludge dewatering - I don't think so, based on visual appearance, content, and odor. He said their composite sample was compliant for color and DO, and all other aspects. He also told me that any info I wanted pertaining to Mohawks record would have to come from someone else in his office, that he only oversaw environmental compliance at Hamilton Wastewater Treatment Plant. 

Heres the theory: 

Mohawk and HWTP do have communication (telephone; maybe an annunciator?) of process flow between Mohawk and HWTP - which means HWTP probably did know it was coming. 

I have a hard time believing it takes 3 hours to get from Mohawk to HWTP in the sewer, a distance of about 2 miles (scaled on the satellite image and driven by automobile). Maybe if the process dump at Mohawk was only gravity-fed, but I have to assume your system runs 1000 gpm or so, which would flood the sewer at point of entry and increase velocity substantially. But, even allowing for 3 hours, the stream would have hit HWTP about 0230 on the 24th. Given the 12-hour process described by Mr. Sarle, we should not have seen color in the waste at the CSO until 1230. We arrived at 0910 with the red flow already in progress. The CSO flowed red until 1010, when it suddenly changed to black/gray/brown (sewage), which flowed at least until 1025 when we departed. 

The red was transparent except for very fine entrained solids, and the sewage was opaque and heavy with fine ground solids. I believe the HWTP operator diverted the flow after the inflow macerator/grinder/pump, around the aerator and clarifier and directly into the CSO at the river. I believe the sudden change from red to black is due to the inrush into the sewer at Mohawk, causing ambient sewage (which would have been very light, at night, on a Saturday holiday in the city when Friday was already a holiday, and no rain had fallen for at least 4 days) to back up behind the red flow. This complete flowage ran thru the grinder and lift pump, and the black outfall is just the backed-up sewage following after the red, having been ground but not treated. If this red and black flow had gone thru the entire process, the solids would have been caught in the settling and filtering process. The black got past because the operator was not watching for the end of the red flow, and did not react in time to shutoff the diversion. We arrived 1 hour after dawn, and saw no other person (operator) come to look at the river. If HWTP personnel were supposed to see the color to determine compliance at the CSO, they had to have looked either in the dark of night, or before we arrived, or after we left. 

Depending on how long the red ran, color probably would not have been visibly detected in a 24-hour composite sample at the waste anyway, but the solids should have. I believe neither color nor solids were present at all because it did not pass thru, rather it passed by. Additionally, the black would have shown in the composite and been a violation, but again passed by undetected. 

Please bear in mind that this is only a theory, based on my limited knowledge of the workings of a paper mill, sewer, and a Biological Nutrient Reduction sewage treatment facility. As I have yet to take the plant tour offered by Mr. Finan, I am only speculating on the general processes. Feel free to add your expertise with such processes if I am off track. 

(end of excerpt from letter to Mr. OConnor) 

. 


I have recently submitted all of the correspondence to date to Ohio 
Representative Mr. W. Scott Oelsclager for review. I understand the USEPA 
defers to OEPA in these matters, but you must still retain some oversight. I 
dont seem to be getting anywhere with the 3 principle entities, for almost two months now. It seems these wheels are grinding very slowly or not at all. My next effort will be with the Ohio Attorney Generals office. You might be able to preclude this, by asking these folks to cut most of the bureaucratic waste concerning these violations. 

Sincerely, 

Dennis J. Malone 
3808 Schroeder Drive 
Hamilton, OH 45011


----------



## iwdavefish (Apr 30, 2004)

Stay on 'em. They're hoping you'll just go away.


----------



## ddd (May 12, 2005)

Keep it up. I am thorougly impressed with your persistance and dedication to acquiring knowledge on this subject. I once took a class at Ohio University that covered many environmental pollution issues and some of the things I learned were just disgusting. 

One person can make a huge difference, so please keep up the good work.


----------



## ddd (May 12, 2005)

Have you tried contacting local newspapers about this to try and gain public awareness?


----------



## billybob7059 (Mar 27, 2005)

keep the heat on them. great to see some one doing sommething for the water they love to fish.


----------



## Ol' Whiskers (Aug 11, 2004)

Interestingly, I have a voice message from Mr. O'Connor at Mohawk Paper yesterday as well - he just wanted "to catch up with me" and asked that I call him at his office in NY - I have not, yet. 

To top it all off, Young Whiskers called me at 8:30 this morning. He was off school at UC today and fishing the same place. When the arrived, the river was running red at the CSO from Hamilton WTP again. He called the OEPA Spills Hotline to report, and the answering service tried to tell him it was just due to the rain last night, which by the stream gage report was only .04 inches. He was able to get a sample in a clean water bottle, and went home to retrieve the dig camera and got some pictures. He also made a sketch of the COS and the dimensions of the outflow, supported by pictures. With this, he did some reasonably conservative calculations (engineering student, bless his heart) to determine that the average outflow of the red effluent was around 300,000 to 500,000 gallons per hour, accounting for 1/2 to 1 percent of the total river flow as reported by the nearest upstream USGS gage.

I called Mr. Ned Sarle at OEPA around 8:40AM, got his VMX and left a message that the same thing was ocurring at the CSO again. He left me a message sometime later that, "Hamilton did not have any knowledge of a color discharge" and asked me to call him back. I did not get his msg until late this evening and have not returned his call. The sample is in the refrigeratot, and has a definite coloration compared to tap water. Also has settled out solids which appear to be paper pulp, or maybe sewage solids. This just tells me they're bypassing the pplant, as this stuff should be segregated in the final filter, if I have the plant workings right.

Realize that there are about 150 of the CSOs from Indian Lake to the Ohio River.

More later.


----------



## Ol' Whiskers (Aug 11, 2004)

Busy Day Friday

Ive been working a lot this week, Saturday & Sunday, so this is 2 days late. 

Made a follow-up call to Mr. Sarle at OEPA, to let him know that Young Whiskers had made the report to the OEPA Spills Hotline, got some pictures and a sample of last Thursdays red water, etc. He reversed what he told me from his voice message Thursday, and said that Hamilton Wastewater Treatment Plant did some more investigating and found that another local paper mill, Smart Papers, was running tan paper and their discharge caused the last red coloration Kevin saw on Thursday, and that someone from HWTP went to the CSO and checked for color and found that it dissipated immediately in the river. Thats not what Kevin described, nor what his pictures might show. 

So, this was not Mohawk Papers, but another mill in town. Disturbing pattern? He asked me for more details, and I said that I would be just giving him second-hand information, gave him Kevins cell phone number so he could hear it from the guy that saw it. Then, Mr. Sarle proceeded to tell me that we need not call the EPA Spills Hotline any more, regarding the dye in the sewage outfall at Hamilton Wastewater Treatment Plant, that they know about it already. I laughed. I told him that we were not going down to the river every day to see if they were running dyes into it, but that we did fish all over the river a couple times a week and would report anything we saw. As we discussed the events of Christmas Eve, particularly the putrid sewage that nobody wants to address and cant happen from our plant, he suggested that some people (reference me) are hypersensitive to odors. I noted that the both of us watched the red change to black with fine solids, smelled it, and watched it run unabated for 30 minutes, and it was still running when we left. Mr. Sarle strongly suggested I take the tour of the HWTP offered by MR. Finan. I reminded him of my request for direct written answers to questions previously submitted in order to keep the tour from being bogged down. He said my questions raised more questions in their minds and needed to be discussed face to face. I again reminded him that they are rather simple questions.

The fact that Hamilton said they didnt know about any red coloration this Thursday shows that they are not the least bit interested in stopping it. Remember earlier, the plant Superintendent Mr. Finan told me its only a violation since you saw it and reported it. Now, we see the same behavior out of another local paper mill. I have to assume this is old hat between the mills, OEPA, and the sewage treatment plant; and that since no one ever reports it, they have to think it doesnt matter. Mr. Sarle says HWTP should be checking the CSO discharge for color, but that now appears a lot like the fox watching the henhouse. This alone is a major conflict of interest, in that HWTP cannot bring itself to discern or report color violations it seems bound by law to report. Now, an OEPA official doesnt want to hear specific reports from local citizens!

I did hear from Mohawk Paper. As I stated earlier, I had a voice message from Mr. OConnor, the Chairman and CEO, on my phone Wednesday when I got home from work. Thursday and Friday were very hectic, very long days at work, and I didnt have a chance to return the call. I got home Friday and was going to send him an e-mail asking to call at a convenient time on Saturday, but he beat me to the punch and called me that evening from his office in NY, and we were joined early in the conversation by his local mill manager. We discussed my latest letter, and he told me they were making substantial changes in the Hamilton Beckett Mill, and had spent a substantial sum in improved equipment and processes. These improvement are meant to emulate the processes they have in the two Hudson River plants in NY, where he says they put cleaner water back in than they take out. He would not address any of my concerns regarding HWTP, but had received e-mail about the latest red discharge and wanted to confirm that it was nothing Mohawk did. I asked if he had a chance to view the threads posted on the website, and he suggested they monitor it very closely. I offered to post any letter of explanation he might produce, which he declined. I believe he wants to make the Hamilton plant right, and expressed the same concerns for discharging better effluent than they take in. I suppose that remains for another day, and well see in the river as this plays out. I did extend an offer to have Mr. OConnor join me in fishing the GMR when hes in town, so he could see what a valuable resource it is.

I have not contacted Smart Papers yet. Kevin was in class until late Friday, and could not return the call from Mr. Sarle. Ill wait to see if OEPA asks Kevin for more info, and see what the result is.

More, later.


----------



## UFM82 (Apr 6, 2004)

And it frustrates me. You are being blown off because nobody knows what is happening. It's like most large companies- they simply can't respond to issues because there is no accountability and no decision-makers. It gets put off until the person complaining simply gets tired of it and quits. 

I would suggest seriously contacting the media. We all know that the press loves to beat down big business and this is a case where the business simply doesn't care about what they are doing. They need to be beaten down a bit and live up to their responsibilities. They may operate only if they do not jeopardize the surrounding environment. They seem to be in violation of that. 

I wish I had the time to help. Stay on 'em dude. 

UFM82


----------



## UncleBud (Apr 11, 2004)

AS you can see, I live many miles north of you. I've followed your endeavors with great interest, and say to you.. BRAVO, SIR, BRAVO. You have been most articulate in your correspondence with the various people and companies involved. I agree with UFM82, it is time to go to the media with this. There is possibly someone who is member of OGF that can put you in touch with a reporter that can carry some weight.
These big companies hate being put in front of the public by the media. Maybe by doing so, some of that BS they are spreading can be kept out of the river systems. 
Remember the Cuyahoga river in the Cleveland area. It took public outcry and a fire to get that cleared up. Some of the youngsters may not know about the Cuyahoga river fire. It got so polluted, that it actually caught fire.
We hope that public outcry will do the trick. You don't need a major disaster and that could very well happen.


----------



## Ol' Whiskers (Aug 11, 2004)

I went to the Statehouse in Columbus today, met Ms. Amy Gomberg of Ohio Public Interest Group (OPIRG). We met with:

Representative Thom Collier - District 90 (Chairman - Economic Development & Environment Committee, Commerce & Labor, Local and Municipal Government and Urban Revitalization, Ways & Means)

Jarrod Weiss - Legislative Assistant for Representative Scott Combs - District 54 (my district, Economic Development and Environment Committee, Commerce & Labor, Local and Municipal Government and Urban Revitalization, Health) 

Jeff Krider - Legislative Assistant for Representaitve James Raussen - District 28 (Vice-Chair Health Committee, Economic Development and Environment Committee, Public Utilities and Energy). 

All were interested in hearing my stories of Hamilton Wastewater Treatment Plant and OEPA response to dumping in GMR, and suggested they might be willing to co-sponsor Representative Oelsclager's legislation requiring reporting of spills. It's a start. All asked if we will testify.


----------



## Ol' Whiskers (Aug 11, 2004)

Similar letters were sent to Representative Combs, Representative Raussen, and Representative Collier:


22 February 2006

Mr. Jarrod Weiss  Legislative Assistant to Ohio Representative Mr. Courtney Combs
77 High St.
Columbus, OH 43215-6111


Dear Mr. Weiss,

I would like to thank you for taking time to meet with me at the Statehouse this afternoon, to review recent sewage discharges were having from the Hamilton Wastewater Treatment Plant here on the Great Miami River. I came to Representative Combs and other legislators as a concerned citizen of 50 years and 20 years from District 54, from Fairfield Township to Columbus, to ask for his support in co-sponsoring Representative Oelslagers upcoming legislation to require municipalities and corporations to notify the Ohio Department of Health, OEPA, and the public and media immediately upon releasing a sewage discharge into any of Ohios waters. As we discussed, it is a serious matter for public health and safety, offering the least bit of defense against mostly unseen contaminants for those that use the rivers and lakes for recreation, agriculture, and other water consumption. The proposed legislation is an excellent first step. 

I left with you for Mr. Combs a time-ordered collection of mail and e-mail communications Ive had with the city of Hamilton, Hamilton Wastewater Treatment Plant, Ohio EPA, and Mohawk Paper regarding effluent discharged into the Great Miami River on Christmas Eve, 24 December 2005. The documentation provided includes photographs of red effluent and black effluent my son Kevin and I witnessed while on one of our frequent fishing trips, descriptions of the river conditions that day, a series of questions posed to the aforementioned public entities over almost two months. I also included photos and description of another dumping event witnessed by my son, in his hand, on 16 February 2006 from the same Hamilton Wastewater Treatment Plant. To date, none of my questions have been seriously addressed by anyone involved. I am hopeful that our experiences on the river will help to reinforce the immediate need for the legislation introduced by Mr. Oelslager, for all citizens using Ohio waters. The printed materials are the highlights of the documentation to date, and are included on a CD-ROM with the entire history. Please feel free to duplicate and distribute as you feel necessary.

Given the gravity of the sewage discharges here in Hamilton, their immediate and long-term effects on the river system and those that use it, I believe much more stringent measures are warranted. Public notification is an after-event bandage on a huge festering sore, but will serve as the best first-aid available. At least it will provide for some public accountability on those municipalities and corporations that are charged with preserving our health and well being, and allow Ohios citizens to better choose to use natural waterways in an educated and safe manner.

I truly appreciate your open ear, and thank you in advance for your support. Please convey my thanks to Representative Combs.

Sincerely,



Dennis J. Malone
3808 Schroeder Drive
Hamilton, OH 45011

513-874-4772


cc: Representative Mr. Oelslager
Ms. Amy Gomberg - OPIRG


----------



## sevenx (Apr 21, 2005)

Ol'whiskers, Thank you for your determination and hard work to see this through. Steve


----------



## Ol' Whiskers (Aug 11, 2004)

sevenx,

Thanks for the good words. It's been almost a second job keeping up, and hasn't left much time at all for fishing. I thought about it on the way home from the meeting with the Ohio Representatives - I've got a big chunk of money spent chasing this, from pictures, color printing, CD-ROMs, postage, gas & mileage, and a half-day off work. Probably $500 so far. It's worth the price, as I've been waiting for years to find out where this stuff comes from, now have 2 instances in less than two months from the same plant. Somebodys gotta do it, or it will just continue unabated. The way it is, it's just not safe, as we had no warning, and no real idea what's in the stuff, especially the black putrid gunk that nobody has ever owned up to. I won't wade any more. I like this river, and I hope my kids' kids will be able to enjoy it as well. 

Anyone who feels strongly about the proposed legislation to force pollution sources to notify the state and public immediately upon a spill in any Ohio waterway should write their district representative asking for support and co-sponsorship of the bill:

The author of this legislation is Representative W. Scott Oelslager (R) District 51, at
http://www.house.state.oh.us/jsps/MemberDetails.jsp?DISTRICT=51

The Chairman of the Environmental Committee is RepresentativeThom Collier (R) District 90, at 
http://www.house.state.oh.us/jsps/MemberDetails.jsp?DISTRICT=90

My local district (Butler County) is Representative Courtney Combs at
http://www.house.state.oh.us/jsps/MemberDetails.jsp?DISTRICT=54

Hamilton County is Representative James Raussen at
http://www.house.state.oh.us/jsps/RepSearch.jsp

You can get to any other Ohio Representative from 
http://www.house.state.oh.us/index.html

Thanks for your support!


----------



## sevenx (Apr 21, 2005)

> Anyone who feels strongly about the proposed legislation to force pollution sources to notify the state and public immediately upon a spill in any Ohio waterway should write their district representative asking for support and co-sponsorship of the bill:


I will do just that and thanks again for all your efforts...S


----------



## BMagill (May 5, 2004)

OW,

I think you were the right person to be there to witness what was going on that day. I don't think there are a lot of people who have the right combination of smarts and pit-bull determination to put the screws to those bureaucrats like you have been doing. I know I have seen similar things in the GMR and other waterways, but I can't say I've ever been proactive about stopping it. Ever consider running for office?

Rep. Oelslager has about 100 bills listed on his site, does anyone know the reference # for this particular legislation?


----------



## Ol' Whiskers (Aug 11, 2004)

Thanks. I think there is no number for the legislation yet, it's in the proposal stage. Just write with a description as above, and tell him you're a concerned citizen and use Ohio waters recreationally, he'll know what you're talking about. I appreciate your support. 

Dennis


----------



## Ol' Whiskers (Aug 11, 2004)

Article received today from a friend:

Whom does EPA aim to protect?
Wednesday, March 1, 2006
Canton Repository

Let's say you're walking along a creek and you spot many dead fish and an oily substance on the surface of the water. A conscientious person might call the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. Be warned that if you do such a thing, you may need to know not only what you saw but also which specific state law or EPA rule has been violated.

We wonder again whom the EPA aims to protect. As The Repository reported Saturday, officials say they need to update the process of reporting pollution problems because the law defining the agency's responsibility to investigate complaints is vague. In fact, the law is precise: It requires the EPA to investigate any complaint about illegal pollution, and it requires the EPA to let the complainer know the results of the investigation. Obviously it would take legwork by the EPA to determine if some reports do involve violations of the law. This is akin to The Repository's chasing a story that proves not to add up to much. It goes with the territory. Private business would find a way to make the complaint process more efficient without discouraging people from complaining.

The new process also would require the complainer to know that the alleged violation caused "actual, immediate or threatened physical or economic injury." The complainer would have to describe the injury and verify the complaint in an affidavit.

Jack Shaner of the Ohio Environmental Council has a better analogy than the empty-handed newspaper reporter: "Filing a verified complaint is like calling the police," he said. " ... You shouldn't have to report what code was violated. ... Why should an environmental crime have a higher standard than a violent crime?"

*The EPA wants Ohioans to comment on the proposed changes by March 31 by writing Mark Navarre, Ohio EPA Legal Office, PO Box 1040, Columbus OH 43216-1049, or e-mailing:*

[email protected]


Thanks and


----------



## Ol' Whiskers (Aug 11, 2004)

2 March 2006


Mr. Mark Navarre
Ohio EPA Legal Office
PO Box 1040
Columbus, OH 43216-1049
[email protected]


Mr. Navarre,

I hereby offer public comment you requested concerning proposed changes in the process of reporting pollution in Ohio. As I understand the intent of the changes, an average citizen witnessing open dumping, for example, would have to cite chapter and verse of the Ohio Revised Code to back to OEPA in the report. Changes in the process requirements would also require the complainant to know that the alleged violation caused "actual, immediate or threatened physical or economic injury, and the complainant must describe the injury and verify the complaint in an affidavit.

Heres my comment: Are you smoking something illegal? How on earth could you think to place the burden of legal interpretation and application of environmental law onto the general public? Is this not what we pay OEPA officials to do? Are you a watchdog agency that interprets and enforces the law, or are you a lapdog agency supporting careless misfeasance, malfeasance, and outright wanton disregard for the health and safety of every Ohio citizen by individuals, persons, corporations, and municipalities that cant seem to police themselves? Is the proposed requirement for an affidavit and estimate of injuries intended to somehow limit the violators responsibilities even before there is an investigation, or is it to limit the investigative work needed to bring resolution?

I went to the Statehouse last week to ask several members of the Ohio House of Representatives for support and co-sponsorship of proposed legislation to force these pollution sources to immediately identify spills and warn citizens through the Ohio Department of Health, Ohio EPA, and local media. I took with me, and distributed to the members, graphic evidence and subsequent correspondence regarding my own recent experiences reporting open dumping in to the Great Miami River in Hamilton. These effluent discharges were reported to the OEPA Spills Hotline, followed by mails and e-mails. I can tell you that I researched and did state the nature of the Christmas Eve 2005 violations in terms of ORC Section 3734 and OAC Rules 3745-27, and provided high resolution color digital pictures of the spills, even before you change the reporting requirements. I have had over 30 written correspondences with several entities including OEPA (Mr. Sarle and others), USEPA (Mr. Heaton & Mr. Bramscher), ODNR, City of Hamilton (Director of Public Works Mr. Reigelsperger, City Manager Mr. Samoviski, Mayor Mr. Ryan), Hamilton Wastewater Treatment Plant (Superintendant Mr. Finan), Mohawk Paper Beckett Mill Manager (Mr. Raley) and Mohawk Papers Corporate officers (Mr. Milner and Mr. OConnor). My initial report and subsequent questions to all of these people have gone largely unanswered. 

In the last two months, I have spent an estimated $500 on printing services, computer storage media, postage, gasoline and mileage, and time off work, only to be mostly ignored and sometimes degraded in the limited responses Ive received. I was told by Mr. Finan that Its only a violation because you saw it and reported it, and by Mr. Sarle that I must be hypersensitive to odors. I am now in the process of submitting the entire works to Ohio Attorney General Petro and Butler County Prosecutor Piper simultaneously, with a belief that I am being ignored by the persons that cause these spills, and by the persons and agencies charged with enforcing the laws. I believe those folks hold the hope that I will sometime go away and leave them alone, or worse that some or all of the entities have joined in some kind of collusive effort to sweep my discoveries under the carpet.

I have over 30 year experience in defining, negotiating, and deciphering labrynthian specifications, contracts, and analyses for commercial, aerospace, nuclear, and military products and process development and testing. I can tell you that even with all of my experience, training and background, I have obviously not reported these dumping events to the satisfaction of OEPA enough to even get a straight answer, much less a resolution. You cannot reasonably expect anyone to do your job. With all of the documentation I submitted, what value is an affidavit? Why drive legal and financial burden to the reporting citizen as well?

Subsequent to the original spills witnessed on Christmas Eve, my son was at the same location in mid-February and came upon similar conditions. He immediately reported to the OEPA Spills Hotline, took pictures and a sample, and called me as well. I left a message with OEPA Mr. Sarle, and his reply message said Hamilton had no knowledge of color dumping into the river. In a follow-up conversation with OEPA the next day, he retracted his statement, and submitted that Smart Papers (another Hamilton mill) had run reddish brown dye into the sewer from a tan paper process. Hamilton Wastewater Treatment personnel, after my sons report, observed the dye in the discharge. It seems a definite conflict of interest to allow HWTP to self-assess sewage it dumps, particularly if they observe it in the river but treat it subjectively and dont report it because nobody else saw it. Mr. Sarle also told me that we did not have to report these spills from this sewage discharge any more because, We [OEPA] know about it. Let the public help you in these observations, and use the resources our tax dollars already pay for do the investigation and sorting.

In closing, if there is anything the OEPA Legal Office can do to help me get these dumping violations resolved permanently in Hamilton, I would appreciate hearing from you.

Sincerely,




Dennis J. Malone
3808 Schroeder Drive
Hamilton, OH 45011


----------

