ADEQ Concerned With Valley View Sewer System

FARMINGTON — The Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality has had correspondence back and forth for more than a year with the director of the sewer system that services Valley View subdivision and the state agency wants to make sure the system does not have any possible leaks, according to documents and emails provided by ADEQ.

The correspondence is the result of inspections conducted the summer of 2012. In response to an odor complaint, field inspectors with the ADEQ Water Division conducted investigations at the facility on July 2, 2012, and Aug. 24, 2012. Washington County Property Improvement District #5, with Joe Stewart as the director, operates Valley View’s sanitary waste treatment and disposal system. The facility is located at 11411 Giles Road in Farmington.

An Oct. 8, 2012, letter to Stewart from John Fazio, District 1 inspector with the Water Division, lists violations found during the two inspections.

Fazio wrote that the department determined that the facility was receiving too much inflow to have zero land application and that the facility’s aeration cell “may be leaking into the waters of the state.”

His letter states that the subdivision has about 280 homes that create about 370 gallons of wastewater per day for a total of 103,600 gallons per day or 37 million gallons per year. Looking at allowable water loss and average rainfall and considering the amount of water inflow and outflow from the aeration cell with no land application, Fazio wrote that millions of gallons of wastewater per year are “unaccounted for.”

He asked Stewart to provide the department with information that accounts for the missing gallons of wastewater or to notify the department that a study has been implemented to determine the cause.

Fazio’s letter listed other violations, including that trees were growing in the aeration cell and that the operation building was in need of cleaning. It indicated that an effluent meter was supposed to be installed but one could not be located. Fazio’s letter also stated that ADEQ did not have a record that annual reports were submitted May 1 of each year, as required by the facility’s permit.

Fazio asked Stewart to take corrective action and send color photos to document the corrections.

According to the ADEQ website, Stewart responded to the department’s inspection report on Oct. 30, 2012. Stewart wrote that he was running different tests to determine if the pond was leaking, that all vegetation from around the aeration cell had been removed and the operation building had been cleaned and put in order. Stewart also addressed other issues from the inspection.

Fazio responded Nov. 30, 2012, that Stewart did not sufficiently address the violations in the inspection report and he did not send color photos documenting any corrective action.

Fazio requested more information and gave Stewart another deadline to respond to the violations in the inspection report.

The file available through the ADEQ website shows the improvement district missed deadlines to respond to the violations and because of that, the case was referred to the Water Division’s enforcement branch. The agency issued a proposed Consent Administrative Order against the improvement district for violations of the Arkansas Water and Air Pollution Act. In a Sept. 10 letter from ADEQ, Kevin Suel, enforcement analyst with the enforcement branch, writes that the proposed administrative order was necessary “to ensure compliance with the Act.”

ADEQ’s proposed consent order outlines “findings of fact,” which include that a no-discharge permit was issued to Washington County Property Improvement District on Jan 31, 2011, and the permit expires Jan. 31, 2016.

The proposed order stated that the investigations from the 2012 inspections revealed several violations: the ultraviolet disinfection system was not in operation, vegetation was growing within the aeration cell which could compromise the liner of the cell and the influent flow meter was not in operation.

The consent order states that through subsequent communication between the improvement district and ADEQ , the district has yet to sufficiently address all items outlined in the inspection report.

The proposed consent order recommended a voluntary civil penalty of $ 3,400 to settle the violations and that the improvement district conduct evaluations to determine the integrity of the aeration cell liner and that all information be stamped and certified by a professional engineer.

In an Oct. 4 response to the proposed administrative order, Stewart takes issue with some of ADEQ’s findings and also asks for relief from some of the action requested by ADEQ, including that the fine be waived because it is excessive.

Stewart contends that his missed deadlines are the result of miscommunication between ADEQ and the improvement district.

Stewart did not sign the consent order and in his response wrote, “I know that there is a very simple answer for any concerns the department has but we can’t answer them effectively if we are not informed. We as of now have a very ‘simple’ system, no treating, no spraying, no monitor well testing, no leaks, no environmental issues.

“As the system increases and treatment is done, I assure ADEQ that all necessary steps and procedures will be followed.”

The latest email from the discussions back and forth shows that the enforcement branch conducted a conference call with Stewart on Nov. 25. Katherine Benenati, ADEQ public outreach and assistance division chief, stated that the improvement district agreed to hire a consultant to work on the issues outlined by ADEQ.

In addition, staff is working on a revised proposed Consent Administrative Order, Benenati wrote in a Dec. 2 email.

According to an email from Suel to the improvement district, a professional engineer will draw up an evaluation survey and a waste treatment system evaluation to test the integrity of the sewer collection in an effort to determine if there are any leaks.

If the tests determine that there is a leak, then the owner of the system must hire a professional engineer to submit a corrective action plan with a reasonable milestone schedule.

Despite repeated efforts, Stewart could not be reached for comment.