Formal Objection to Permit Authorization of Short-Term Emergency Discharge — Hazardous Waste Fire…

Photo Credit: Michael Constant

Formal Objection to Permit Authorization of Short-Term Emergency Discharge — Hazardous Waste Fire and Spill Cleanup Site, Roseland, Louisiana

To Whom It May Concern,

I am submitting this letter as a formal objection and request for clarification regarding the permit provision authorizing a short-term, emergency discharge associated with the Smitty’s fire and chemical spill cleanup site in Roseland, Tangipahoa Parish, Louisiana.

At the outset, clarification is required that the site is being regulated as a bulk oil and chemical distribution facility, despite the fact that it is, and will remain for years to come, an active hazardous waste fire and spill cleanup site. This distinction is substantive and directly affects the applicable regulatory framework. The Smitty’s site is not a routine industrial operation, but a hazardous waste cleanup location resulting from a chemical and oil fire and spill incident.

Due to the presence of multiple chemicals and oil associated with the fire and spill response and cleanup activities, the site exhibits risk characteristics and contaminant profiles that differ significantly from those of a standard bulk oil or chemical distribution facility. As a result, generalized permit coverage is not sufficient, and site-specific permit conditions are warranted

This authorization is of particular concern because the site represents a worst-case chemical and oil fire and spill scenario, where the presence of hazardous substances, mixed chemicals, combustion byproducts, fire-suppression residues, and unknown contaminants must be presumed unless conclusively demonstrated otherwise through comprehensive and ongoing daily analytical verification.

The permit references a “short-term, emergency discharge,” yet fails to clearly define or justify either term in a manner sufficient for a hazardous waste spill cleanup site, as required under the Clean Water Act (CWA) and the Louisiana Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (LPDES) implementing regulations at 40 CFR §122.

Specifically, the permit does not identify:

• The maximum duration that constitutes “short-term,” nor whether repeated six-month authorizations may effectively result in a long-term discharge condition over the multi-year duration of site cleanup;
• The objective, measurable criteria that meet the threshold of an “emergency”; or
• The site-specific conditions under which an emergency discharge may be initiated during hazardous waste fire and spill cleanup activities.

At a site involving chemical releases and fire response, undefined emergency discharge provisions are neither enforceable nor protective of receiving waters.

The permit further states that the discharge is “treated,” yet provides no technical basis to support that assertion. The permit does not specify:

• Which chemical constituents or pollutant classes the discharge is treated for;
• Whether treatment addresses all hazardous substances reasonably associated with chemical fire response, including petroleum constituents, combustion byproducts, and chemical residues that may fluctuate as cleanup activities progress;
• What analytical parameters are tested;
• The sampling location, methodology, timing, or frequency; or
• Whether analytical results at the point of discharge demonstrate, on an ongoing basis, compliance with applicable water quality standards and confirm that the discharge is free from toxic constituents at levels of regulatory or environmental concern.

Because cleanup activities inherently change site conditions and contaminant profiles over time, the absence of defined, frequent, and adaptive testing requirements renders the assertion that the discharge is “treated” unsubstantiated and insufficient to demonstrate compliance with the Clean Water Act.

In addition, the permit authorizes the capture and treatment of cleanup-generated water, while failing to address rainfall runoff originating from the remainder of the site that is not captured or treated, despite flowing through the same roadside ditches, culverts, and drainage pathways that ultimately discharge to the Tangipahoa River, and downstream to Lake Pontchartrain and the Gulf of Mexico.

This presents a fundamental inconsistency in the permit’s protective logic.

Photo Credit: Jody Hart

If water generated during cleanup operations is sufficiently contaminated to require capture, treatment, and testing prior to discharge, then rainfall runoff contacting the same impacted soils, debris, and residual contaminants must reasonably be assumed to pose a similar risk.

The permit provides no explanation for why cleanup-generated water requires treatment and monitoring, while stormwater runoff from the broader site footprint is implicitly treated as uncontaminated and allowed to discharge untreated through the same pathways.

While cleanup-operations water and stormwater runoff are not the same by definition, at a hazardous waste cleanup site they can present equivalent environmental risk. Regulators cannot assume stormwater is “clean” solely because it originates from precipitation when it traverses a contaminated site.

At a hazardous waste fire and spill cleanup site, rainfall runoff can mobilize hazardous substances, dissolved contaminants, and combustion byproducts, resulting in uncontrolled off-site migration. Selective treatment of one discharge pathway while allowing untreated site-wide runoff undermines the stated purpose of the permit and fails to protect downstream waters.

Further, the authorization of an emergency discharge conflicts with the intent and requirements of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90) and established spill response doctrine. OPA 90 and associated response planning frameworks require facilities to prevent, contain, and recover releases, not to rely on intentional discharge as an emergency response option unless conclusively demonstrated to be non-toxic through repeated verification.

Authorizing an emergency discharge at a hazardous waste fire and spill cleanup site is inconsistent with:

• Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) principles under 40 CFR §112;
• Facility response planning assumptions that prioritize containment and recovery; and
• The Clean Water Act’s objective to eliminate pollutant discharges to navigable waters where feasible.

As written, the general permit does not provide an adequate technical, environmental, or regulatory basis under the Clean Water Act, LPDES regulations, or the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 for authorizing any discharge from this site based on a short-term emergency justification.

Accordingly, I respectfully request that the permitting authority:

• Clarify whether the site is being regulated as a bulk oil and chemical distribution facility or as a hazardous waste fire and spill cleanup site, and reclassify the site as necessary to accurately reflect current conditions;
• Provide clear definitions and site-specific justification for any emergency discharge authority;
• Clarify whether repeated short-term authorizations may result in de facto long-term discharge conditions;
• Identify the specific contaminants tested on a daily basis, including analytical methods and reporting requirements;
• Require secure, site-wide containment and the capture, testing, and treatment of all runoff leaving the site, including rainfall runoff and cleanup-generated water;
• Treat all runoff equally, regardless of its source; and
• Revise the permit to remove or significantly constrain the authorization of any discharge under this provision.

Without comprehensive runoff control, adaptive and frequent testing, and discharge prevention, the permit fails to ensure protection of downstream waters and renders partial treatment measures ineffective.

Sincerely,

Tucker J. Mendoza Environmental & Spill Response Professional Spill Response & Compliance Advocate