Bloomer residents still calling foul over smelly waste
 No comments posted.
By MARK GUNDERMAN
mark.gunderman@lee.net
Wednesday, August 13, 2008 12:08 PM CDT
Bloomer area residents made a show of force at the Chippewa County Board meeting Tuesday in an effort to have rendering waste material that is buried at a county gravel pit removed.
Twenty-nine people stood while group spokesman Steve Hilger reviewed what he alleged were procedural errors leading to burial of the waste in October 2007. The people who live near the gravel pit have feared since that time that the waste would ultimately contaminate their groundwater.
County Administrator Bill Reynolds acknowledged procedural errors, but emphasized that the bottom line is there is no evidence whatsoever, based on testing and scientific opinion, that the material poses danger to the groundwater.
The issue dates back decades, to the existence of an old rendering plant in Chippewa Falls that eventually became the site of a brownfield clean-up. In 2007, a company planned to build a drywall plant on the site and discovered unstable ground where a railroad spur was to go.
Barrels of grease and other waste material, as well as animal waste such as bones and decayed organic matter, was found underground. The company officials wanted it removed.
Concerned about the viability of an economic development project, county and economic development officials contacted the DNR, quickly secured a permit, and moved the waste.
The stuff in the barrels was taken to a landfill. The remainder, described as “smelly soil,” was taken to Bloomer.
County Highway Department equipment and personnel were used to bury the waste at the Bloomer site, which was noticed by neighbors due to the bad smell.
Hilger noted the speed with which the action took place, suggesting it seemed like an attempt to circumvent procedures.
He read from the permit, showing it specifically stated that burial at the county site should not result in any environmental contamination, if conditions were met.
The conditions included that it be separated by at least 10 feet from the groundwater table and not be buried within 1,200 feet of any private well.
Hilger said observers thought the pit the material was buried in was about 15 feet deep, and the groundwater in the area is consistently 15-16 feet deep. Also, there are private wells as close as 640 feet.
Hilger acknowledged reports that indicate the material is not dangerous.
“But it’s still buried too close to the groundwater and too close to the wells,” he said.
“So there’s no pathogens in it? My concern is that I have a sister by Green Bay and when you brush your teeth you have to hold your nose because it stinks so bad.”
Hilger said the issue was whether the material should be left there, given the fact that the permit was violated.
“If the soil is of detriment to the local populace, the county has a legal and moral responsibility to correct the problem,” Reynolds said.
However, there is no evidence the material is a danger. Reynolds said the DNR had a two-year history of dealing with materials at the site prior to the discovery of this extra material, and had declared it was not contaminated.
Still, based on citizen complaints, the DNR contacted a state environmental health office, which drew the same conclusion.
Based on continued citizen complaints, the town of Bloomer hired an engineering firm, which took three samples from the site and had it tested at two independent laboratories. Both indicated the material posed no danger as long as it stayed buried.
Based on that, Reynolds said the county couldn’t justify the approximately $40,000 expense of moving the material again.
The citizens, though, found sympathy on the board.
Evelyn Maloney said the county never took title to the rendering company land and therefore had no responsibility for the waste. She wondered how it happened that the highway department moved quickly to deal with what was not a county problem.
Since the waste never should have been moved there, she advocated moving it away, drawing applause from the group.
Jerilyn Brost also voiced complaints about how this happened.
“I can tell you this was done wrong,” she said.
Henry Shakal agreed with Hilger, that the permit said the material wouldn’t do harm as long as conditions were met, and the conditions were not met.
The board took no action, and it is unclear if it will be brought back. Hilger had mentioned the possibility of legal action based on the permit violations.
|
Archives