‘Ellen Tuck’ responds to letter on ‘gray water’ issue

As the infamous “Ellen Tuck” who hosted the recent neighborhood meeting to discuss the Roosevelt black water issue, I had the pleasure of reading your recent editorial and Mr. Jeff Hunt’s reply. I truly appreciate the vigor with which the Examiner took up the cause of the residents of Roosevelt on very short notice.

I wish that I had the opportunity to speak with the Examiner before the editorial was published, but I was out of town. As it stands, Mr. Hunt is correct when he states that there were some inaccuracies in the piece and that most people do not expect trucks to barrel our narrow streets. However, having cast stones at your newspaper for not taking an objective and balanced view, Mr. Hunt neglects to state the reasons for the opposition and creates some new inaccuracies of his own.

Our primary objection to the black water proposal is that the council is undertaking this project and its associated risks without the requisite study or knowledge of the facts or the effects of its actions. There are four primary areas of concern: obfuscation, safety, health and environment, and financial.

Let’s be open about what the mayor and council are discussing. “Gray water” is clearly defined in both law and engineering. The ordinance provides for “black water” at best. The council knows this. A decade ago, a previous mayor and council proposed shipping in black water for processing. The resulting public relations debacle created local animosity on which every later successful candidate relied to get elected, including our current officials. We would like the mayor and council to call this what it is. Anything else is disingenuous.

There is a safety issue. Three children were killed by a vehicle while playing by the side of the same street on which the council now proposes to ship waste. The street is narrow and is too small to permit a car and a delivery truck to pass in opposite directions. There are no sidewalks (fodder for another editorial). Children play in the street. Trucks will be on the street while children are present. Under the ordinance, the trucks can carry 5,000 gallons of waste. As a result of their weight, the trucks cannot stop nearly as quickly as a car or a FedEx truck. Many of the delivery trucks (and cars) do not obey the speed limit and they are not substantially slowed by our speed bumps. Further, as Mr. Hunt points out, we already have a tanker truck periodically backing down the narrow street because there is no space to turn around at the sewer plant. All traffic on the street comes to a halt as the truck backs up slowly for one-half mile. Much of the same holds true for other larger vehicles that use the road. It is a safety and logistical issue. The fact that we currently suffer safety and traffic issues is an argument for less traffic, not more.

While I hear interesting claims about the potability of the discharge from the sewer plant, the town has had problems with paint thinners, mercury and other toxins dumped into the sewage system. These things happen. They also happen in the septic systems from which we are led to believe the new waste will originate. Septic systems are the end location for all types of materials and waste, including toxins and medical radiological waste. If a small amount of these materials are processed in a large facility, dilution helps to limit the impact. In a small system such as ours, the effect can be much more substantial. Under the proposed ordinance, the borough will not even test for many of these substances before the waste is fed into the system. While the ordinance contains language that purports to restrict the nature of the waste, it effectively allows five to 15 minutes for testing. Some of the tests (e.g., BOD) require five days to complete. Roosevelt is one of very few towns in the state that uses an Imhoff filter in its system. If the Imhoff is contaminated, the sludge cannot be reused and the filter cannot be incinerated. The cost of this disposal has not been considered. If any of these materials ends up in the discharge into the creek, the environmental damage and cleanup costs can be significant.

The best-case financial projection is $35,000 to $50,000 gross revenues per year. No analysis has been done on the costs and risks. These include road repair resulting from industrial truck traffic, the cost of road spill cleanup, wear and tear on equipment, environmental cleanup, the cost of personnel, testing costs, the expenses inherent in being unable to recycle or incinerate filter residue, costs to the borough in the event of personal injury, etc. One bad discharge or other environmental problem could cost multiples of the projected revenues in costs and fines. There is no requirement for bonding. The provisions regarding financial burdens are poorly written. Even if the borough eventually recovers any unforeseen expenses, it may be at the cost of extended litigation and we may have to come up with the money up front. We have been asked to view this as a business proposition. We have. No business person sells something without knowing their “factory costs” and risks. The borough has not thoroughly examined these costs and risks.

There are people who do not believe we should be dumping anything more into the waters of the Assunpink Creek. Their concerns are not trivial. Assuming that we decide to take in additional waste and discharge into the creek, there is a better solution. The borough should place storage and grinding facilities at the old borough gas station. It has easy truck access and is located on a major road. The waste could be adequately tested and fed into the system at a rate and at times best suited to the borough and its facilities. It is always easier to stop a problem going in than it is to clean up the problem once it is in the system. While this scenario involves some investment, it is safer, more readily scalable, and may save substantial amounts in the future.

Mr. Hunt is correct when he says that we pay an inordinate amount of money for water and sewer service, but this includes all of the people who object to and who will be affected by the current proposal. The use of quick fixes is one of the ways we got into this mess. Let’s not compound the problem. In short, the objectors to this plan want an open and thoughtful analysis of the risks, rewards and options available to the borough.

Jeff Ellentuck

Roosevelt