Winter 2010/2011 brings a shiver in the air, and a bite to the wind. The leaves are mostly down, and the first snow is on the ground. The yard work is done or at least halted, and we await the next real dump of snow. There are also decorative lights around the neighborhood, which are always fun to see.
What have we done this year? On the social track, in January the wine and cheese evening opened up the year. Perhaps thirty of us brought wine and wine glasses and talked with members of our extended neighborhood. We were just past the snow of Dec. 2009, and still had snow on the ground.
In February we got hit with two blizzards. Wow. 2-3 feet of snow on the ground, endless shoveling, 10 foot deep snow piles, and cold crisp air. It looked picturesque. But the contracted snow clearing was a large unexpected cost to the HOA.
March and April brought us spring, and a brief period of bloom along Indianola Drive. Those old pear trees are still providing a wonderful coloring in the spring, along with the Cherry trees on Monona Drive.
June saw a novel event. Departing Board member Danielle Swallow arranged the ice cream social, and we hired two musicians to play. We split the ice cream costs with HOA 1 and 2 and invited their residents to come out as well. It was a nice warm day, and the crowd went up over 100 people. About that time, our HOA board election brought in new members Sacha and Alex.
In July a sudden severe wind storm knocked down many branches and complete trees along Indianola and some of the green spaces of the neighborhood. The County did an impressive job the next day with large machinery and dump trucks picking up the broken material and carting them away. There were and still are some trees the DSS HOA will be cleaning up, along with stumps to grind and places to replant. We are still talking with the County about replanting along Indianola Dr.
In September we did not have our usual picnic. We'll try again in 2011.
Looking ahead in 2011 we'll have a wine and cheese evening on February 5 and perhaps an ice cream social in the summer and a picnic in the fall. We'll have another board election next June, I expect vacancies as some of the terms expire. I encourage people interested in joining the board to get in touch with me. We'd especially like to have some new women Board candidates and also people interested in organizing social activities for the community.
On the business side of the HOA, the ad hoc Gude Landfill Concerned Citizens group (or GLCC) pushed the county Department of Environmental Protection (or DEP) to investigate the trash distribution and water quality around and near the Gude Landfill site. By June the contract had been let and over the summer EA Engineering made aerial maps, measured elevations, drilled several new water table test holes around the perimeter of the landfill, and dug pits around the landfill site to examine waste distribution.
After the November general election, the state government remained the same but with leadership at MDE changed. December saw the NES report issued. For 2011 the GLCC will continue to monitor events as the state MDE and County DEP arrive at a remediation process
Merry Christmas, Hanukkah, Kwanza, etc. Season's greetings and a Happy New Year to all.
Recent Neighborhood Incidents
A neighbor on Indianola reported that someone drew a swastika on his driveway on Christmas morning and wrote VW on his son's VW car. Police were notified.
A grass fire was reported about 3 AM on New Year's day. It was located near the intersection of the pipeline rights-of-way which is behind the houses at the end of Grinnell Terrace. Firecrackers were found in the area. Brush fires can spread quite quickly, which is why we cut the grass, so this is significant.
Please report any incidents you are aware of or witness to the appropriate fire or police authorities.
Note from a Neighbor
If you are renovating your kitchen and are getting rid of one of the original builders' 24" wide wall cabinets that is in decent condition, please contact me at shee.cath@gmail.com.
Thank you.
Cathy
Your Community Bulletin Board
At a recent board meeting a neighbor asked if people could send recommendations for service providers to the newsletter. I told him that the board had decided that service provider information could not be printed in the newsletter.
Would you like to tell neighbors about a service you provide? Do you want to know about service providers that neighbors have used? Go to Hollybrooke.wordpress.com to post comments on issues, post recommendations on service providers or services, post lost and found notices, and post items for sale
2010 - What a year!
SNOW STINKBUGS EARTHQUAKE
HEAT WAVE WINDSTORM & POWER OUTAGE
May you all have a safe, happy and healthy New Year.
A Winter Reminder
Homeowners are responsible for removing the snow from sidewalks in front of their property. The HOA pays to have the snow removed from sidewalks in front of the common areas. This includes Wapello Way at the pipeline easement, on Indianola Dr. beside the townhomes, and on Monona Dr. This does not include the townhome parking lots or sidewalks.
For additional information please look under the AERC and Maps section at www.hollybrooke.org
Neighborhood Helpers
We would like to inform our neighbors that, in the State of Maryland, children must be 13 years old to baby-sit a child under the age of 8 when the parents are absent, per Family Law Article, § 5-801.
We do not endorse any child whose name appears on this list, nor do we screen the list for qualifications and abilities.
|
Name
|
Age
|
Street
|
Phone
|
Jobs
|
|
Natalie Fein
|
13
|
Grinnell Terr.
|
(301) 309-1481
|
Babysitting
Pet Sitting
Dog Walking
|
|
Carly Fumai
|
17
|
Grinnell Drive
|
Cell-(301) 938-4216
|
Babysitting
House Sitting
Pet Sitting
Dog Walking
|
|
Jackie Gross
|
15
|
Titonka Way
|
(301) 670-0060
|
Babysitter
Mother's Helper
Dog Walking
Pet Sitting
|
|
Leo Kremer
|
14
|
Moravia Court
|
(240) 477-7537
|
Lawn Mowing
|
|
Judie Kuo
|
15
|
Bettendorf Ct.
|
xxily4everxx@yahoo.com
|
Babysitting
Dog Walking
Pet Sitting
|
|
Nansen Kuo
|
12
|
Bettendorf
Ct.
|
knmoney812@gmail.com
|
Dog Walking
Pet Sitting
Lawn Mowing
|
|
Andrew Moore
|
15
|
Grinnell Ct.
|
(301) 309-0983
|
Babysitting
Dog Walking
Pet Sitting
Lawn Mowing
Snow shoveling
|
|
Zoe Phillips
|
13
|
Indianola & Grinnell
|
(301) 330-0799 or
(240) 506-5040
|
Babysitting
(Shady Grove Trained)
Dog Walking
Pet Sitting
|
|
Sarah Radonic
|
15
|
Indianola Dr.
|
(301) 294-9124
|
Baby Sitting
Pet Sitting
|
|
Rosemary Smith
|
16
|
Wapello Drive
|
(240) 449-5715
|
Babysitting
Pet Sitting
Dog Walking
|
|
Nicole Spouge
|
13
|
Grinnell Dr.
|
(301) 217-9527
|
Babysitting
|
|
Elissa Wollins
|
15
|
Wapello Drive
|
(301) 762-8821
|
Babysitting
(Shady Grove Trained)
Pet Sitting
Dog Walking
|
Please note: If you want to change or delete an entry, please contact the newsletter editor at (240) 314-0528 or by email at newsletter@hollybrooke.org or email communications@hollybrooke.org. Updates will be included in the next newsletter.
Additional Useful County Phone Numbers
|
Animal Services
|
240-773-5925
|
Untagged Cars
|
240-777-3600
|
|
Abandoned Cars
|
301-840-2455
|
Noise Control
|
240-777-7770
|
|
Air Pollution Incidents
|
240-777-7770
|
Recycling
|
240-777-6410
|
|
Building Permits
|
240-777-6370
|
Pot Holes
|
240-777-ROAD
|
|
Building Code Inspections
|
240-777-6210
|
Solid Waste
|
240-777-6410
|
|
Consumer Protection
|
240-777-3636
|
Street Lights
|
240-777-2190
|
|
County Information
|
240-777-1000
|
Occupancy Permits
|
240-777-6210
|
|
Electrical License/Permits
|
240-777-6240
|
Vendor Information
|
240-777-6240
|
|
Environmental Protection
|
240-777-7770
|
Water Pollution
|
240-777-7770
|
|
Fire Code Violations
|
240-777-2457
|
Wed Control
|
240-777-3600
|
|
Housing Code Enforcement
|
240-777-3600
|
Zoning Information
|
240-777-6240
|
|
Illegal Dumping
|
240-777-7770
|
Zoning Complaints
|
240-777-6259
|
From the AERC Committee
The Architectural and Environmental Review Committee (AERC) tracks the compliance issues with the Homeowner's Covenants we all signed when we bought into the neighborhood. Owners apply for permission to make material changes in construction such as fences and house finishes. Again, they have helped give the community a more unified look. Some of their forms and minutes are online.
AERC Philosophy
It is the Committee's job to get your application APPROVED, within the construct of our Guidelines and Covenants. We want to talk with you to make sure we understand what you want to do. We will work with you so that the application process is quick and comfortable.
Applications received May 2010 - August 2010
May 15465 Indianola Drive Install Swing Set Approved
May 7309 Gold Ring Terrace Install Swing Set Approved
Jun 7421 Monona Terrace Rear addition Approved
Jun 15448 Indianola Drive Fence installation Approved
Jun 15524 Villisca Terrace Siding, shutters, front step & railing Approved
July 7313 Grinnell Drive Garage door replacement Approved
July 15516 Moravia Court Fence installation Approved
Aug 15461 Indianola Drive Deck & Fence Installation Approved
Aug 15523 Villisca Terrace Deck staining Approved
Aug 7430 Monona Terrace New Shutters & Door Approved
If you have any questions about any of the guidelines, or the application process, contact any member of the AERC listed below.
AERC Members
Donna Parisi 15617 Gold Ring Way 301-294-2477 njshore83@Comcast.net
Dan Navarro 7115 Grinnell Dr 301-424-3779 dbnavarro@comcast.net
Paula Hadzima 7420 Monona Terrace 301-545-0241 1hadzi@comcast.net
Bob Tremmel 15514 Villisca Terrace 301-424-3777 bobtremmel@verizon.net
Sacha Rosen 7210 Bettendorf Court 202-285-8937 sacharosen@yahoo.com
Sally Hausman 15512 Grinnell Terrace 240-314-0528 sally.hausman@verizon.net
Update on the Gude Landfill Cleanup - Keith Ligon
Montgomery County's Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) has concluded the Nature and Extent Study that was required by Maryland's Department of the Environment (MDE). A summary of the Nature and Extent Study findings and analysis prepared by DEP's environmental engineering firm is attached to this newsletter. At this time, DEP is in process of developing a Remediation Feasibility Study which will describe available options to remediate the environmental problems identified at and around Gude Landfill. The Feasibility Study will be provided to the MDE. The MDE will review the Nature and Extent Study and the Remediation Feasibility Study and provide guidance and direction to DEP on what actions will be required.
The Gude Landfill Concerned Citizens Committee (GLCC), which has been established by the three Derwood Station homeowners' associations to engage with the County and State officials and ensure effective communication with our community, has sent a letter expressing its concerns to the MDE. A copy of this letter is attached to this newsletter.
Each homeowner is encouraged to become informed about the Gude Landfill. The DEP conducts monthly meetings regarding the Gude Landfill environmental problems and remediation activities. DEP also posts all relevant documents and information on its website (short URL: http://bit.ly/ebLbw9 ). The monthly meetings are open to the public, and all Derwood Station homeowners are encouraged to attend. They are held on the second Thursday of each month at 7:30 p.m. at the Montgomery County Transfer Station administrative offices located at 16101 Frederick Road, Derwood, MD.
Questions can be sent to:
Bob Hoyt, Director, Department of Environmental Protection, Montgomery County
at : askdep@montgomerycountymd.gov
Or to Steve Lezinski, at: Steve.Lezinski@montgomerycountymd.gov
GUDE LANDFILL - NATURE AND EXTENT STUDY FACT SHEET
Gude Landfill - Nature and Extent Study Montgomery County, Maryland
Fact Sheet December 23, 2010
EA Engineering, Science, and Technology
Overview
The Montgomery County (County) Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) recently completed a Nature and Extent Study (Study) to assess the potential environmental and public health impacts associated with low level environmental contamination in the vicinity of and potentially resulting from the Gude Landfill (Landfill). The results of the Study indicated that while there is persistent low level groundwater contamination and occasional surface water detections of contaminants from the Landfill, there are no significant exposure pathways to neighboring residents and consequently, no risks to public health. Note that the groundwater in the vicinity of the Landfill is not used as a potable water supply. The Derwood Station residential development's potable water is serviced by the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission (WSSC), a public water supply system. The Nature and Extent Study was recently completed and submitted to the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) on November 19, 2010. While DEP is waiting for comments from MDE on the Study as well as their recommendations for remediation, DEP is concurrently working with its consultant to outline a range of remediation alternatives. A decision on the remediation approach is still several months away. County DEP has been meeting with a local citizen advisory group, the Gude Landfill Concerned Citizens (GLCC), on a monthly basis from June 2009 to Present regarding the Study's field investigations and reporting requirements to the MDE. Within GLCC, the three (3) Homeowner Associations of the Derwood Station residential development (Derwood Station 1, Derwood Station 2 and Derwood Station South) are represented. These monthly meetings are also open to any interested members of the public (please contact Steve Lezinski at Steve.Lezinski@montgomerycountymd.gov for dates, times, and the location). A public meeting with members of the Derwood Station Community was held on September 24, 2009 to present the potential site concerns of the Landfill and an overview of the Study. On June 25, 2010, DEP hand-delivered letters to the Derwood Station residents that were located in the immediate vicinity of the new groundwater monitoring wells, which discussed well installation and construction activities. The new groundwater monitoring wells were installed and sampled as part of the Study. Of the five (5) monitoring wells installed within the Derwood Station residential development, there was only one (1) monitoring well with contaminant detections that exceeded Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) concentrations for drinking water and that was from the monitoring well (MW-9) located in Dubuque Court. The Study is included on the Gude Landfill Remediation Webpage at: (short URL: http://bit.ly/ebLbw9 ). DEP has prepared this Fact Sheet as follow-up documentation to the Community meeting and to summarize the details and findings of the Study.
Site Background
The Landfill was used by the County for the disposal of municipal solid waste and incinerator residues between 1964 and 1982. The site, located at 600 East Gude Drive in Rockville, Maryland encompasses approximately one hundred sixty-two (162) acres, of which approximately one hundred (100) acres were used for waste disposal. Since final closure of the Landfill in 1982, the County has conducted voluntary groundwater and surface water monitoring, contracted for the installation and several upgrades to the landfill gas management system, stormwater management and other site maintenance activities. During calendar year 2008, the Landfill water quality data were requested by the GLCC during discussions of a proposal by the County to relocate the existing County Bus Depot on Crabbs Branch Road to the Landfill. In response to GLCC's concerns, MDE reviewed the water quality data and required the DEP to initiate the Study to assess potential environmental and public health impacts from the Landfill. EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc. (EA) was contracted by DEP through the Northeast Maryland Waste Disposal Authority to assist with the field investigations and technical evaluations of the Study.
Aerial and Field Site Survey (2009-2010)
Work initiated prior to the Study included an aerial survey that was performed to obtain topographic elevations of the Landfill surface. A field site survey was performed to provide a meets and bounds survey of the Landfill property boundary and to obtain location and elevation information for existing site features (groundwater monitoring wells, landfill gas extraction and monitoring wells, stormwater management infrastructure, etc.). The final survey site drawings are expected to be completed in December 2010.
Waste Delineation Study (2009-2010)
Work initiated prior to the Study included a waste delineation study that was performed to locate the approximate horizontal extent of waste placement along the property boundary of the Landfill. Mechanical excavation or hand auguring was performed at 161 test pit locations, which indicated that waste was generally placed within the Landfill property boundary except along the northeastern portion of the Landfill. Along the northeastern property boundary, waste was identified approximately two-hundred (200) to two-hundred-fifty (250) feet onto Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission (M-NCPPC) property. The waste delineation study was completed in January 2010. DEP is pursuing a potential land swap with M-NCPPC, in which the County would exchange approximately seventeen and one-tenth (17.1) acres of waste-free land on Landfill property for approximately sixteen and one-half (16.5) acres of waste-filled land on MNCPPC property.
Protected Resource Investigations (2009-2010)
As part of the Study, a protected resource investigation was performed to determine the presence and extent of wetlands and waterways with respect to federal and state jurisdictional authority and to assess forest stand conditions and structure. With respect to wetland and waterway delineation: three (3) wetlands, three (3) stream channels and two (2) ponds in the vicinity of the Landfill were identified as potentially jurisdictional features. With respect to forest stand delineation: four (4) forest stands were identified within the area of review, predominantly along the perimeter of the Landfill. The protected resource investigation was completed in March 2010.
Groundwater Monitoring Well Permitting and Installation (March-July 2010)
As part of the Study, permitting for access and installation of on-site and off-site groundwater monitoring wells were coordinated with GLCC, County Department of Permitting Services, MDE and M-NCPPC. Sixteen (16) new groundwater monitoring wells were installed as part of the Study to supplement the existing twenty (20) groundwater monitoring wells. The new groundwater monitoring wells were generally located along the perimeter property boundary of the Landfill and within the Derwood Station residential development on Dubuque Court, Grinnell Terrace and on M-NCPPC property off of Bettendorf Court. The installation of the new groundwater monitoring wells was completed in July 2010.
Subsurface Soil Sampling (July 2010)
As part of the Study, during drilling of the sixteen (16) new groundwater monitoring wells, one (1) subsurface soil sample was taken from each monitoring well for laboratory analysis. Reported concentrations in subsurface soil samples generally did not exceed Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) residential soil cleanup standards other than for metals, which were consistent with background levels published by MDE (State of Maryland, Department of the Environment, Cleanup Standards for Soil and Groundwater, June 2008). Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) were reported in concentrations exceeding the residential cleanup standard in one (1) groundwater monitoring well location located inside the southeast Landfill property boundary (MW-4); however, a risk evaluation indicated no human health concerns for contact with subsurface soil at this location and other subsurface soil sampling locations.
Surface Soil Sampling (July 2010)
As part of the Study, eleven (11) surface soil samples were collected along the Derwood Station South property boundary, in the northern portion of the Landfill site, near the Men's Shelter and near the model airplane flying area of the Landfill site. Reported concentrations in surface soil samples generally did not exceed the residential soil cleanup standards other than for metals, which were consistent with background levels published by MDE. The reported concentration of PCB exceeded the residential cleanup standard at one (1) location outside the northeast property boundary of the Landfill (SS-3); however, a risk evaluation indicated no human health concerns for contact with surface soil at this location and other surface soil sampling locations.
Surface Water Sampling (July 2010)
As part of the Study, ten (10) surface water samples were collected from off-site streams around the perimeter of the Landfill site. Reported concentrations in surface water samples generally did not exceed the MDE residential groundwater cleanup standard. The reported concentration of cobalt exceeded the residential cleanup standard at one (1) location outside the northeast property boundary of the Landfill (SW-3); however, a risk evaluation indicated no human health concerns for contact with surface water at this location and other surface water sampling locations.
Groundwater Sampling and Monitoring (July and September 2010)
As part of the Study, groundwater samples were collected for laboratory analyses in July 2010 (EA Analysis) from the twenty (20) existing and sixteen (16) new groundwater monitoring wells. In accordance with the approved MDE Groundwater and Surface Water Monitoring Plan, the County collected groundwater samples from the existing and new groundwater monitoring wells in September 2010 (County Analysis). Groundwater elevation data collected during the two sampling events indicate primarily east and south flow directions, with flow components to the north and northeast. The variable flow components along the Landfill perimeter appear to reflect localized radial groundwater flow, which is consistent with variability in topography, recharge via surface water, and potential mounding of groundwater within the waste mass created by the former Landfill. The July and September 2010 groundwater sampling data indicate that the north-northwestern and south-central boundaries of the Landfill continue to have the higher reported chemical concentrations. Although groundwater is not used as a source of potable drinking water in the Derwood Station residential development, MDE required the use of drinking water standards for comparison of reported chemical concentrations in the groundwater samples. The MCLs were established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The constituents of concern as identified in the Study with consistent reported concentrations exceeding MCLs are: tetrachloroethene (PCE), trichloroethene (TCE), cis-1.2-dichloroethene, vinyl chloride, benzene, methylene chloride and 1,2-dichloropropane. Most constituents detected, except vinyl chloride, are typically less than the drinking water standards (MCLs) in the southwest, southeast, and northeast portions of the Landfill site. Data from the newly installed groundwater monitoring wells indicate that the impacts reported in the OB03 groundwater monitoring well pair at the northwest property boundary extend north-northeast, not west toward the Derwood Station residential development.
Risk Evaluation (July - September 2010)
Following receipt of the subsurface soil, surface soil, surface water and groundwater analytical data from the laboratory, a risk evaluation for all associated media was performed in accordance with MDE and U.S. EPA guidance to assess potential concerns for human health and ecological receptors. The results of the risk evaluation indicated that reported concentrations in subsurface soil, surface soil and surface water do not present human health or ecological concerns for contact with any of the media. Reported concentrations in groundwater do not present a human health concern, since the groundwater is not used as a potable water supply. Additionally, reported volatile organic compound (VOC) concentrations detected in the groundwater monitoring wells, in the Derwood Station residential development or on Landfill property do not present a human health concern from indoor air (vapor intrusion) inhalation.
Current Status
A Nature and Extent Study Report that summarized all data collected during the Study was submitted to MDE on November 19, 2010. Upon MDE's formal review and response to the Study Report, DEP plans to meet with GLCC and other County agencies to discuss the recommended remediation alternative(s). Additionally, a Remediation Feasibility Memorandum is being prepared to summarize several potential remedial actions including monitored natural attenuation, bioremediation, landfill capping, impermeable barriers, permeable reactive barriers, and selective waste excavation. GLCC and DEP representatives continue to meet on a regular monthly basis to exchange information. These meetings are open to the public.
For additional information, the County's point of contact is:
Steve Lezinski, Engineer III
Montgomery County Processing Facility and Transfer Station
16101 Frederick Road, Derwood, MD 20855
Tel: 240-777-6590; Cel: 240-832-0414; Fax: 301-840-2385
Email: Steve.Lezinski@montgomerycountymd.gov
The letter below was sent by Dave Peterson, Laszlo Harsanyi and Nick Radonic, the presidents of the 3 neighborhood HOAs to the Maryland Department of the Environment.
GUDE LANDFILL CONCERNED CITIZENS
15461 INDIANOLA DRIVE
DERWOOD, MD 20855
December 20, 2010
Robert M. Summers, Ph.D
Acting Secretary
Maryland Department of the Environment
1800 Washington Boulevard
Baltimore, Maryland 21230
Dear Acting Secretary Summers,
Our community has received and read the Gude Landfill Nature and Extent Study (NES).
The report documents a continuing, increasing adverse ecological impact on our community and environment over the past twenty-five years, and we believe it documents a failure by Montgomery County to manage the consequences of owning the Gude Landfill (GLF). Had the County not proposed using the landfill for a school bus depot, we probably would not have learned that our community has been impacted by landfill leachate through the groundwater aquifer, and the state might never have been notified.
We appreciate that the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) has provided program oversight and directed the County to institute formal monitoring and reporting programs and to prepare a remediation plan for MDE's consideration. We are writing you to express our views as adjacent neighbors to the landfill. We know that you will be analyzing the engineering data and reaching conclusions on the way forward. We thought it important that we provide you the views of 500 families whose neighborhood is just 200 feet away from the landfill and that you read these views before you receive the County's proposed remediation plan.
Nature and Extent Study - The NES documented that contamination has crossed the
perimeter of the landfill boundary. We read that:
- Waste is outside the property boundary.
- Groundwater contaminants have moved off site.
- Surface water samples have shown MCL exceedances.
- There are ground level methane leaks above the explosive limit.
- Subsurface soil samples exceed limits.
- Surface soil samples exceed limits.
We also read, for the first time, that the County has agreed to these three MDE
remediation goals:
- No MCL exceedances at the landfill boundary.
- No non-stormwater discharges to the waters of the State.
- No methane exceedances at the property boundary.
In addition to the NES, Montgomery County's environmental consultants have
submitted a Remediation Feasibility Memorandum, addressing cost and effectiveness of
various alternatives. To date, this memorandum has not been made public or shared
with GLCC.
The County is working to modify the consultants' analysis, apparently focusing on the
price tag of the alternatives, rather than their effectiveness or timeliness. This points to
a fundamental conflict of interest within the County. For example, our neighborhood
group has already been told that the County intends to pursue a soil cap, rather than a
synthetic cap or combination of alternatives, because the soil cap would cost at least ten
to fifteen million dollars less than other choices. Since our community is adjacent to
the landfill, we are more concerned about effective remediation than a cheap fix.
It's our understanding that as MDE weighs the various options to halt the
contamination spreading from the Gude Landfill, there will be discussions with the
County on the appropriate remediation. Our community seeks a seat at the table, a
request we strongly believe is warranted, and encouraged by the provisions of COMAR
26.08.01.02.
It's important to us that the process be open. We lack full confidence in the County, and
wish to assure that our interests are given consideration. The remediation order from
MDE will be the single most important decision on the future of our neighborhood, and
the County's efforts to repair the damage that's been done. We urgently request the
opportunity to observe and monitor the process first-hand, so that we'll have a
thorough understanding of how the decision is made, and what the State's priorities
are.
Effective Remediation Plan - We believe that the remediation process should begin
promptly. The three goals of remediation, listed above, need to be the metrics against
which success is measured. All waste and toxic contaminants must be contained within
the landfill property and cleaned up where it has migrated offsite. We believe an
effective Remediation Plan should also incorporate the following elements:
Communication Plan - In the December 2010 meeting with the GLCC, the County
outlined its future communication plan, which includes periodic newsletters and public
availability of key documents. They did this in response to our specific request. We
seek a far more open and transparent approach than what has been proposed. The
County should directly engage all stakeholders, including homeowners and the county
council officials, prior to key steps in the Remediation Plan, or whenever there are
material negative events on the landfill (such as methane exceedances). Where possible
and relevant, the stakeholders should have a timely opportunity to be heard.
Ombudsman - in conjunction with requiring a comprehensive communication plan,
MDE should establish an ombudsman as a key element of the Remediation Plan.
Supported by remediation plan funding, the ombudsman would ensure that the
community and stakeholders are informed and their interests heard. The need for such
a function is supported and reflected by MDE's Environmental Justice initiatives, which
support community involvement and communication. The remediation of the Gude
Landfill should reflect MDE's commitment to these principles.
Quality of Life - During remediation we expect there will be significant activity on the
landfill. This activity could expose neighbors to contaminants in the air and surface
water as the landfill is transformed into a more controlled state. A hazardous program
management plan that includes continuous monitoring of the surrounding area must be
included in any remediation program. This should be pre-briefed by the County to all
who might be affected. Again, we stress the need for communication outreach by the
County, and a channel through which we can express our concerns.
Independent Reporting - The County's failure to disclose the spread of contaminants
from the Gude Landfill for more than twenty-five years shows that self-reporting does
not work. We therefore believe a fundamental element of the remediation program
should be an independent on-site inspector who reports directly to MDE.
Risk - We're pleased to learn that the NES concludes there is no immediate health risk
to members of our community and that emergency action is not required. However we
think that MDE should take a more holistic view of risk. There are 4.8 million tons of
waste in the GLF which is located 200 feet from a residential neighborhood and less
than 100 feet from wetlands and streams that feed Rock Creek and ultimately the
Chesapeake Bay. The potential for damage is serious enough that the Gude Landfill
needs direct hands-on management by the State of Maryland.
Our 500 families appreciate that you will take into account our views on the GLF status
and issues. As very concerned neighbors, we would appreciate MDE's response to the
following questions prior to any remediation discussions with the County:
1. Did the NES report which you received, meet the requirements of a good,
complete NES report?
2. There are many years of partial groundwater data but only 2 groundwater data
test points from the new wells in the NES. Do you have sufficient information to
make a decision concerning the GLF remediation?
3. What process is followed to review and approve the remediation plan within
MDE? At what point, if at all, is the Environmental Protection Agency notified or
involved?
4. What are near term next steps? Specifically, when will you be identifying
remediation alternatives? As stated, the GLCC wishes to be involved in that
process.
5. Will the remediation plan be driven by cost or effectiveness? We believe that the
County will seek the lowest cost alternative and not necessarily the most
effective solution to the problem. Will MDE support the most effective
remediation plan to reach the identified goals/rnetrics?
6. What is the timeline for the decision process for remediation?
Thank you for your concern and attention to this matter. We have suggested several
concepts that we believe are critical to an effective Remediation Plan for this specific
site. These include a fully supported Communication Plan, Ombudsman, and an on-site
inspector reporting directly to MDE. Also, we believe it critical that MDE take over
direct management of the remediation. Given the history of the landfill, the pressures
placed against the county's budget and its officials, we believe that the most effective
remediation effort requires state agency involvement. The County was ordered to
conduct an NES because it failed in its responsibility of environmental stewardship. The
State should think twice before continuing the existing management structure.
