ADEQ investigating ADOT environmental practices once again on SR179 bridge project

ADOT started demolition of the old bridge at least 3 months ago and perhaps earlier, apparently without filing any notification or work plan. 

The photo taken on September 27, 2009 reveals pieces of the old bridge deck lying on the creek bed (in the shadows---to the left of the third new pier, on the left in the forefront).  Also apparent is part of an old pier that has been mechanically removed (probably saw cut).  Also visible are concrete barriers that were erected as a temporary sidewall on the old bridge deck.

ADEQ is currently conducting an investigation to determine if this notification requirement was met, and whether other applicable environmental regulations were not properly followed.  If the notification was not met, this is a significant breach of the federal NESHAP’s environmental law.   

The photo above shows that a large section of the old bridge was already previously removed by ADOT, prior to the submission of proper regulatory notification or the submission of a proper work plan. Under the NESHAP regulations, ADOT’s contractor must provide advance notification to the ADEQ for any bridge that is to be demolished, prior to the start of demolition.

Just recently ADOT submitted a work plan for bridge demolition.  The notification is dated 12/2/09.  The plan (see attached) includes the stripping of lead based paint from bridge railings and girders in the bridge with a solvent (possibly methylene chloride, which is a hazardous substance).  Bridge demolition always entails the possibility of encountering asbestos in the bridge structure itself.  Although ADOT did conduct an inspection of the bridge in 2008 for the presence of asbestos (and found none), no details of this inspection are provided in the work plan, including where the samples were taken, how the samples were analyzed, what analytical techniques were utilized, etc.  

The above-referenced work plan developed by ADOT for the old Tlaquepaque bridge demolition is wholly inadequate in detail to determine whether or not the public, the workers, and the environment are being properly protected throughout the demolition project.  The work plan should have been made available to the public for review and comment many months ago by ADOT and the City of Sedona in conjunction, given its potential ramifications.

During my 30 year career as a professional environmental engineer with a degree in mechanical engineering from Penn State, I have reviewed many environmental work plans, including dozens of work plans for the $150 million hazardous waste cleanup of the Western Processing Superfund site in Seattle, WA.  I served as project manager for the Environmental Protection Agency for a continuous 3 year period on this site. 

In my professional judgment, the above bridge demolition plan is a very poor quality work plan, designed to fulfill a bureaucratic requirement, rather than serve as a working document for demonstration of environmentally safe demolition of the bridge, and further demonstration of full protection of the workers and the public.  

During the handling of hazardous wastes involved in the demolition, workers will be required to wear personnel protective clothing, including half face respirators.  Typically when dealing with hazardous waste on a construction project, a decontamination reduction zone is set up to prevent cross-contamination of workers and the surrounding area.  No details are given regarding any decontamination reduction zone, nor are specific and detailed methods provided for safe handling of generated hazardous wastes. 

The work plan simply states that “containment pails and visqueen” will be placed below the work area.  What is a containment pail?  Are they referring to 5-gallon buckets?  What solvents will be used to strip the paint from the beams?  How will the solvents be stored?  No details are given.  How will ADOT determine that all of the lead has been removed from the beams?  What landfill will receive the generated hazardous wastes?  Is it a hazardous waste landfill?   

The work plan states that a catchment mechanism will be placed over Oak Creek (under the bridge), constructed of steel beams, fence panels, and plastic sheeting, to catch any material that could inadvertently fall into the creek.  However, the plan does not indicate whether or not the catchment mechanism will be moved to cover the entire span of the bridge as the demolition progresses.  This is necessary because any material that falls onto the dry creek bed is subject to washing downstream during periods of high water flows. 

Please note that Oak Creek is an Outstanding Arizona Water, considered a Tier 3 EPA waterway.  Tier 3 waterways are offered extraordinary protection under the Clean Water Act.  No degradation of a Tier 3 water way is allowed to occur.

The work plan states that all work will be done at night “to ensure the safety of all persons, both travelers of the roadway and all workers.”  If the work is being conducted in a safe manner, why wouldn’t the work be conducted during daylight hours when visibility is at a maximum, and emergency services are most readily available?  The work plan is silent on this subject.    

There are many unanswered questions about this demolition plan.  Perhaps the most important is---what methods and techniques were used to protect the workers, the public, and the environment during previous demolition activities for which no work plan was prepared?

Previous ADOT environmental violations at Oak Creek

ADOT has a history of environmental non-compliance in the state of Arizona, and therefore their activities must be carefully monitored by the public until a pattern of consistent compliance is established.  

ADOT was previously cited by the ADEQ for at least 8 separate regulatory findings and at least 2 Notices of Violation relative to the bridge construction work at Oak Creek, in early 2009. 

As a result of bridge construction activities, ADOT also exceeded permitted water quality standards in Oak Creek on 12/4/08, 12/11/08, 12/16/08, 12/24/08, 12/31/08, 1/23/09, 1/24/09, 1/25/09, 2/10/09, and 2/19/09.. It is not known what actions, if any, ADEQ took against ADOT for these water quality exceedances.

All of these violations and exceedances occurred despite the fact that there is a full-time environmental inspector on site, employed by ADOT.

ADOT environmental violations at Christopher Creek

In 2002-2003, while involved in construction along Highway 260, ADOT's contractor built a drainage ditch and bulldozed a total of more than 100,000 gallons of silt-laden stormwater into forest streams in Gila County. During 2002-2003, the silt drained into several waterways that flow into Christopher Creek and, later, Roosevelt Lake, with each discharge lasting from at least one day to two weeks or longer.  Christopher Creek is critical habitat for the spiked dace and loach minnow, both protected fishes under the federal Endangered Species Act. The discharged silt changed the color of the surface water, settled on the creek bottom and formed bottom deposits. The pollution created risks to aquatic life and recreational uses in the creek.  A civil penalty of $80,000 was issued in 2008 against ADOT’s contractor.

As a result of this incident, the ADEQ negotiated a statewide Consent Order with ADOT that places stringent environmental requirements on ADOT activities.  Obviously the consent decree has been loosely adhered to, at best.

NEPA implications

Under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), every major federal project, such as major highway construction, must undergo either an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or an Environmental Assessment (EA).  An EIS is the most stringent of the assessments; and usually requires strong environmental mitigation measures to be implemented during the project.  

During project planning, the SR 179 construction project was issued a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) to the environment by the EPA, ADOT, and the Federal Highway Administration.  In my professional opinion, this constituted a major error on the part of the agencies issuing this ruling of insignificance.  We are being asked to believe that a $75 million dollar highway construction project, which included the above notices of violation, had no significant impact on the environment, between the Village of Oak Creek and Sedona.  (See item 10 below). 

For your information, “significance” is based on the twin criteria of context and intensity.  Context means the affected environment in which a proposed action would occur; it can be local, regional, national, or all three, depending upon the circumstances.

Intensity means the degree to which the proposed action would involve one or more of the following 10 factors:

1) Adverse effects associated with “beneficial projects”;

2) Effects on public health or safety;

3) Unique characteristics of the geographic area (e.g., historic resources, park lands, prime farmland, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, ecologically critical areas);

4) Degree of controversy;

5) Degree of highly uncertain effects or unique or unknown risks;

6) Precedent-setting effects;

7) Cumulative effects;

8) Adverse effects on scientific, cultural, or historical resources;

9) Adverse effects on endangered or threatened species or designated critical habitat (pursuant to the Endangered Species Act);

10) Violations of federal, state, or local environmental law.

The environmental consulting firm Jones and Stokes, a highly respected national firm, wrote in a NEPA article that “According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, federal agencies annually prepare more than 50,000 EAs leading to FONSIs, contrasted with about 500 EISs.  Despite this overwhelming trend, the conclusion of no significant impact is often not well supported by the accompanying EA.  

ADEQ contact

If you would like to voice your concerns about the bridge demolition work, or other environmental aspects of the SR 179 construction project, you can e-mail the Director of the ADEQ, Benjamin H. Grumbles, at bhg@azdeq.gov.