PO Box 211

Stockertown, PA 18083

September 17, 2019

Mr. Joseph Buczynski (via email)

Assistant Regional Director
DEP Northeast Regional Office

Mr. Buczynski,

I am sending this letter to you to document my experience in filing Right to Know

Request 2019-0404 with your department regarding the Synagro project in Plainfield
Township, and your response to me as the Office’s Right to Know Officer. However,
this letter is addressed to you in your capacity as Assistant Regional Director.

The purpose of my request was to obtain a record of what happened at the May 23, 2019
on-site meeting – or what I came to learn were two meetings - to discuss the technical
deficiencies of Sedimentation Basin #2. As your meeting reminder (Exhibit A) shows,
this was the subject of a meeting scheduled for 10:00AM to 12:00 noon on that date.

At the planning commission review meeting on April 17, 2019, Plainfield Township’s
manager Tom Petrucci requested that the township attend a meeting Synagro’s Pam
Racey had announced, to discuss the deficiencies of the basin – the same purpose as
stated in your reminder. Here is the interchange with Mr. Petrucci:
Plainfield Township and Pen Argyl were told that they would be included in the meeting,
and were sent the agenda shown in Exhibit B, for a meeting at 11:00AM on May 23.
Neither was made aware that they would actually be joining a meeting that was to begin
at 10:00AM, the agenda for which is shown in Exhibit C.

An inspection of the 10:00AM agenda reveals that the technical deficiencies of

sedimentation basin would be discussed as Item #3; the deficiencies were identified by
the Northampton County Conservation District (“NCCD”). This is the item the township
requested to be present for to witness. Item #5a is a “Question/discussion” period on the
sedimentation basin’s “status”. Item #6 states that Plainfield Township would be joining
the meeting “after the DEP portion of the meeting.” (emphasis added) In contrast, the
11:00AM agenda lists Permit Status and Monitoring Plan as the topics to be discussed.

In other words, Plainfield Township (and Pen Argyl) would be allowed to join only after
the completion of the questions and discussion of the technical deficiencies of
sedimentation basin #2 – which was their reason for attending as agreed to with the
Applicant.
An inspection of the attendee list for the 10:00AM and 11:00AM meetings shows that the
attendees are virtually identical, with the exception that the township and borough
representatives were added to the 11:00 “meeting”. The 11:00AM agenda is extraneous,
since the 10:00AM agenda shows the township would be joining the meeting. The
11:00AM agenda appears to have been created for the sole purpose of concealing from
the township and borough that the discussion they purportedly were invited to attend
would take place prior to their arrival.

Mr. Petrucci informed me that the township received only the 11:00AM agenda. He
would not comment on the fact that the municipalities were excluded from the discussion
of the deficiencies of the basin, but stated that he was pleased that the township was “able
to get things on the record.”

However, to my disappointment and shock, you informed me that there are no minutes of
this meeting, or what was recorded as two meetings, other than notes taken by four
employees that are deemed to be “working notes”. These include David Matcho, Tracey
McGurk, Roger Bellas and a fourth DEP employee. Working notes are exempt under the
Right to Know Act, so there is no record whatsoever of what actually happened at this
very important meeting.

Plainfield Township sent a team of professional consultants to attend this meeting, along
with Mr. Petrucci and a supervisor. This team was sent using our tax dollars, to
participate in a discussion. While they were able to make some statements of the
township’s position, they were not part of the discussion. They were reportedly treated to
a series of important verbal announcements by the DEP, none of which are in print. One
example is the announcement that a Chapter 105 permit will not be required to partially
fill the sedimentation basin. Another is that Mr. Bellas is familiar with the geology of the
area of basin #2, and it differs from the Slate Hills Quarry a mile away, where a DEP-
approved clean fill operation polluted the aquifer. This statement appears to be
something that Synagro submitted, and is not clear that Mr. Bellas has independent
knowledge of it. According to township consultant Jason Smith’s statements a few
weeks following the meeting, it was announced that nothing will be put into print until a
permit is issued, and that a permit will be issued.

Ms. Racey is quoted above stating that the “requirements” that the NCCD found were not
met, are apparently “recommendations”. This is a critical distinction, and a discussion in
which the township’s consultants and officials should have taken part. How there can be
doubt as to what constitutes a deficiency due to a requirement versus not meeting a
recommendation is as bewildering as the fact that there is no written record of the
meeting.

You said to me that there is nothing “nefarious” in scheduling back to back meetings, or
the lack of a written record - the DEP holds hundreds or thousands of meetings a year. I
respectfully disagree on both counts. While DEP may hold many routine meetings, this
meeting was not routine. The record, such as it is, shows that the municipalities were
excluded by design from the meeting that they were invited to attend.

There is evidence that the DEP intentionally did not put anything in print to memorialize
this meeting. First, in your response to RTK 2019-0404, there were two pages in a file
titled “Notes from Mtgs on SBHRC_23_May_2019-Bellas.pdf” which purport to be
Roger Bellas’ meeting notes (Exhibit D). You indicated to me on questioning that these
working notes were sent in error, that they are in the category mentioned above as
exempted and should have been retracted. Note that there are no redactions using
blackened rectangles. You confirmed with me that in the original document, the bottom
of the first page and second page are blank. This document contains phrases and
statements that appear to be contemporaneous with the 11:00AM meeting at the top of
the first page, but “10:00 mtg” appears halfway down the page – suggesting that this
document was created sometime after the meetings were over, taking information from
the actual “working notes,” which you may not have been supplied. It is unlikely that
Mr. Bellas took no notes during the technical deficiency discussion from 10:00AM to
11:20AM, which is the time that Plainfield’s representatives were allowed to join the
meeting after being held in a small room for 20 minutes. It is also unlikely that 10:00AM
took place after 11:00AM on this date. As to the content of Mr. Bellas’ notes, there is
nothing of significance written, in comparison to the very significant statements reported
to have been made verbally at the meeting.

Secondly, Synagro’s representative Jim Hecht stated at the September 9, 2019 final
planning commission review (at which the planners recommended rejection of the land
development plan) that “DEP will put nothing in writing after what happened with the
email about the basin, which was appealed.” This was not an email, but rather a signed
letter written by Mr. Bellas on August 10, 2018 (Exhibit E). The township filed a
written request that Mr. Bellas reconsider the determination contained in the letter, to
which it received no reply. The township appealed the determination to the
Environmental Hearing Board. The Environmental Hearing Board rejected the DEP and
Grand Central’s attempt to have the appeal dismissed, finding that Defendants had
supplied virtually no information about the basin or site. Thus, the EHB found the appeal
had merit. To date the issue of the appeal has not been resolved, since Mr. Bellas
retracted his letter.

Is this standard, for the DEP to not put important things in writing, which have already
been decided? According to attendees of the May 23rd meeting, the DEP has determined
that a waiver of a Chapter 105 permit will again be issued, as it was in 2007. This is what
Mr. Bellas’ August 10, 2018 letter stated. Why would the DEP not want to resolve this
issue, instead of going through the entire process of issuing permits – knowing that the
same issue will be raised on appeal? This seems like a very irresponsible way to handle
our tax dollars.

I would like to also bring to your attention a few more statements that Synagro made at
the September 9, 2019 review meeting. The options for planners were to reject the land
development plan application, or conditionally approve it. Synagro representative Pam
Racey stated multiple times that Synagro needs some kind of local approval in order for
the DEP to issue permits – which would contain in writing that a Chapter 105 waiver will
be granted. Synagro would then use the waiver to subvert the township’s ordinances.
Ms. Racey then proceeded to suggest that in her mind the significant zoning/SALDO
deficiencies in Synagro’s plan could be handled under conditional approval. One of these
is that the township’s requests for an Environmental Impact Statement have been ignored
by Synagro since March 2018.

As this meeting approached 10 minutes of its advertised ending time, and Synagro held to
its position that it would make no further extensions of the September 30 deadline,
Synagro became more desperate to obtain the conditional approval Ms. Racey stated
earlier is needed to defeat the township’s ordinances. Although they have maintained
through legal counsel and submissions even the very night of this meeting an EIS is not
required, Synagro suddenly committed to doing a “scoping” of an EIS, not the EIS itself,
within 60 days. An EIS scoping would of course be useless to planners or the Board of
Supervisors in determining whether or not the land development plan represents a threat
to the health safety and welfare of the community. Part of conditional approval would be
that the EIS would have to be completed by some unspecified date in the future, after the
DEP’s permits were issued, and used to defeat our local ordinances.

Planners realized that a full EIS would be needed, and that this will take months – at least
three months to obtain just a scoping document. Synagro, apparently under pressure
from Waste Management based on a statement made by Ms. Racey and the fact that
Waste Management’s counsel circulated to the podium multiple times, stated that a 90-
day extension was not acceptable.

If the Board of Supervisors votes to reject this application, the question arises of will the
DEP continue to work on Synagro/Waste Management’s permit applications. The
question also arises of whether without issuing permits, DEP will again issue a statement
that sedimentation basin #2 will be issued a waiver, so that Synagro can use it to defeat
our ordinances – an intent they are not reluctant to express. It is all about a means to an
end, as opposed to proving that they meet our ordinances.
At the August 12, 2019 DEP hearing on the Air Quality and NPDES permit applications,
Plainfield Township’s counsel Jack Embick stated that DEP has “encouraged township
officials to approve this project,” and this was “inappropriate” (Exhibit F). Yes, it is.
This is not “nefarious”, but blatant. Whoever did this should be fired, unless this is
standard policy within the department. Conveniently, this was also done verbally
apparently, as I was informed that a Right to Know request to the township would result
in no known responsive documents.

Lastly, and of additional concern, there is credible evidence that there is “pressure” at the
“state level” to approve this project. Does the DEP respond to or participate in such
pressure? We here are concerned about our air and our water.

Sadly, I can say that in speaking with multiple representatives of the DEP, I have found
no one in management that I believe has exhibited concern about the water quality of
sedimentation basin #2, a freshwater pond and Waters of the Commonwealth. Synagro
incessantly states that “it is not a pond,” but it is a pond. It infiltrates 100% and has no
outfall. That is a pond. I do not place as a priority over the protection of our water
quality a goal by DEP or others to proliferate the use of biosolids across the state of
Pennsylvania.

All I have received in response to inquiries is “it was approved previously and Waste
Management has the responsibility.” By contrast, I spoke with a “boots on the ground”
DEP employee familiar with sedimentation basin #2, and that person did express concern.
I stated that neither our planners nor Synagro or Waste Management knows how deep it
is (EarthRes has come up with multiple “estimates”), or how the water in it is exchanged
with groundwater and creeks, and this person stated “neither does the DEP” in a
concerned voice.

The facts outlined above are very troubling to me. Pressure from the “state” to approve
the project, DEP refusal to put anything in writing, DEP’s participation in the scheduling
of the May 23rd meeting(s) and the suspicious “working notes” of that meeting I received
including no items of significance, DEP not following through and providing the
evidence needed to win the appeal and settle the issue over Mr. Bellas’ August 10, 2018
letter, the DEP encouraging my town’s officials to approve the project, and last but not
least Synagro acting as though the DEP has already approved the project and eager to use
DEP permits to pre-empt our ordinances. This stinks to high heaven and it in fact
appears to me that there are “nefarious” forces in play. This should be about protecting
our environment and natural resources, not something else.

Donald Moore

cc: (all via email)

Tom Petrucci, Plainfield Township Manager

Robin Zmoda, Pen Argyl Manager
Plainfield Township Supervisors, Individually
Senator Mario Scavello
Amy Bellanca, PADEP
David Matcho, PADEP
Roger Bellas, PADEP
Pamela Kania, PADEP
Tracey McGurk, PADEP
Daniel Ahn, NCCD
Sharon Pletchan, NCCD
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT C
EXHIBIT D
EXHIBIT E
EXHIBIT F
 Public Hearing Comments
Draft NPDES Permit No. PA0276120
Proposed AQ Plan Approval 48-00111A
Slate Belt Heat Recovery Center LLC
Plainfield Township, Northampton County
August 12, 2019

Good evening. My name is Jack Embick, and I am here tonight as counsel on behalf of
Plainfield Township, in connection with Slate Belt Heat Recovery Center project. With me
are four of the Township's consultants, who will address various issues associated with the
draft AQ Plan Approval and the revised draft NPDES Permit being considered for the
SBHRC project.

My comments address three important issues, as follows.

First, the land development and zoning process at the Township level is not complete.
Final Departmental action on the permits should not occur until the local land development
process is complete. Important permitting issues and permitting provisions may become
apparent as the land development process unfolds. I say this with confidence, because the
local land development review process has already yielded, for example, a valuable draft
nuisance mitigation and control plan, which we hope the Department is considering
seriously as an important addition to the permits. Further, the Township believes the
applicant has not yet demonstrated compliance with all local requirements.

In addition, it is my understanding that representatives of the Department have urged the

Township to act favorably on the land development application. This is inappropriate for a
number of reasons, and the Department should allow the Township to complete freely the
land development process according to the provisions and requirements of its local
ordinances and the Pa. Constitution. If the Department wants to comment on the pending
land development application, we urge the Department to submit publicly its comments so
that the Township decision makers and the public may receive them, just as we are doing
tonight for the Department at this public hearing.

Second, in connection with the land development process, the Township requested that the
applicant perform an environmental impact study, in order to provide the Township
decision makers with the information they needed to ensure that the Township ordinances
were complied with, and the mandate of Art. 1, Sec. 27 of the Pa Constitution was
maintained. We asked that the applicant perform the following:

1. Conduct a study, in advance, and identify the current, cumulative, and future effects
ofadverse environmental impacts ofall activities associated with the proposed use.
The study must identify and assess direct and indirect environmental effects that can
be negative or positive; identify and assess impacts that are immediate, short-term or

1
 long-term; and which impacts can be incremental, compounding over time, or develop
over the passage ofyears; and
2. Determine whether and to what degree the effects or impacts will infringe
unreasonably upon or violate the protected rights and values (air, water, scenic,
historical, natural, and esthetic) or unreasonably cause actual or likely deterioration
ofthe listed values

The Applicant has so far refused to perform such a study.

We are not aware that the Department has required such a study either in connection
with its multi-program evaluation and review of the proposed project. We think the
information may be important for both the Township and the Department to assure
compliance with the mandates of the Pa. Constitution. In addition, because the
Township's consultants have uncovered various areas where the design and
monitoring of the proposed project can be significantly improved, it is clear to us that
the issuance of a general solid waste permit covering these activities is simply
inappropriate. Individual, as opposed to general, permits should be required for each
one ofthese kinds of facilities. Further, an environmental impact study should be
required for the project.

The Township is not aware that the Department has evaluated the environmental
impacts of the project as an integrated whole and in the current geographical and
social context of the proposed site. The Department must avoid a temptation to
consider the proposed permits in a piecemeal fashion.

In addition, we are not aware that the Department has yet responded to the important
public comments and concerns submitted at the public hearing which occurred on
November 7, 2018, almost nine months ago. The Department needs to communicate
more effectively and in a timely manner with the public about the proposed project
and its advantages and disadvantages.

Finally, the Township urges the Department to require a Chapter 105 permit for the
proposed additional fill to be added to Sedimentation Basin #2, also known as the
former Doney II Quarry. The Township's consultant, Jason Smith, will provide
additional technical details on this issue.

One significant reason why the Department should utilize the Chapter 105 permitting
process for the old quarry is this: the old Doney II Quarry was simply repurposed as
an erosion and sedimentation control facility and as a stormwater control facility for
the Grand Central Sanitary Landfill. However, as far as we can tell, the only
significant so-called engineering that was performed was to dump thousands of cubic
yards of waste slate into the pond. The pond is directly connected to the groundwater
and the Waters of the Commonwealth, and nobody to date has been able to articulate

2
to the Township's satisfaction what its actual configuration is, how it functions, and
more importantly, how its use protects and maintains water quality and the waters of
the Commonwealth, including the adjacent special protection waters of Waltz Creek
and Little Bushkill Creek. The old quarry may provide some E&S and stormwater
control functions, but nobody seems to have defmitive answers. The Chapter lOS
permitting process will provide, document and confirm those answers, if they exist.

In conclusion, the Township asserts that SBHRC and Synagro must be as attentively
focused on environmental control, and pollution and nuisance prevention as they are
on the transportation of sewage sludges and the production of Class A Biosolids,
should the permits be issued.