Odor in knoxville and Loisianna. No biosolids not guarentee cure.

As knox county's expert explained Tuesday the odor from composting is not necessarily from biosolids. The composting operation if not ran properly can cause odors.
It is well known in the solway community of the odor problems from this facility. Even NRR's own consultant recorded a "pungent sour-type odor" 500 feet from the entrance. "See highlighted yellow in document below" click on document to enlarge.


I can not think of a time in years when the solway residence were not upset about the odor. Their have been public meetings, multiple petitions, news stories, letters from several residents, etc.. Turns out that NRR has a similar history in Louisiana as documented in the documents below, In L.A., NRR without biosolids still received a multitude of complaints associated with composting.

Ponds and Wells

Below is a letter from these people where they complained about their well and then a sink hole opened in the contamination ponds. If you look at the bottom of the letter from the mayors office, the mayors office told TDEC that their were no wells within a mile of solway!




Why did the mayors office feel the need to tell TDEC their were no wells within a mile of the facility? Why were these people not told to test their well? The mayors staff even met with these people about their well and still didn't tell them about the contamination pond spill.








Below is where the state recorded failures in both ponds at the same time. Eventually both ponds had to be lined with rubber liners because of these collapses and sinkhole problems.


Below is a 2005 letter from Mr. Popp where he again notified Knox county of his well and again was not notified.



Below is where the ponds were still in failure in 2005.



Below is a map of the suspected sink holes, the one in question opened directly under the contamination pond. you could drop a volkwagon in the hole that opened. Why were the neighbors on drinking water wells not warned!

This is how much we are owed!







See quoted text below from deposition of Bruce Wuethrich

Q. Well, these unforeseen things that
Mr. Evans told you came up, how much did that cost
Natural Resources?
A. I do not know.
Bruce Wuethrich
Gibson Court Reporting
865-546-7477
Page 58
Q. How much was the revenue sharing that
John Evans unilaterally agreed not to collect?
A. The calculation I did was in the
magnitude of about 140,000, but I don't know if that's
an accurate calculation.
Q. What did you base that calculation on?
A. On documents I had received from Natural
Resources.
Q. So if you don't have any idea how much
these unforeseen things cost Natural Resources, how can
you say that it was fair to not collect $140,000 in
revenue shares?
A. I don't know that I can answer that
question. We did not do a cost analysis.
Q. Well, if it had been brought to county
commission, isn't that the kind of thing they would
want to look at in deciding whether to amend the
contract, how much does this cost the contractor?
A. I guess, you'll have to ask county
commission that question.”


Because of this situation a copy of the sales data from NRR of material sold subject to revenue sharing as described in the contract was requested. A copy of the provided sales data is attached above. The un paid revenue sharing payments turned out to be around $300,000.00

Also their remains the issue of a $25,600 invoice submitted to Knox county by NRR for processing material that NRR had already been paid to process. Rodney Rockett clearly stated that their was no existing brush in the area in question before NRR used it as a tipping area and was paid for these services. This is corroborated by aerial photography and the testimony of the green waste recycling coordinator. Yet NRR submitted a bill for cleaning up this material to Knox County claiming that it was “existing logs/brush”

See quoted text below from deposition of Rodney Rockett

Q. For whatever period of time that was, as
I understand it then, customers would bring trucks into
the scales first to be weighed so they could be
invoiced?
A. Correct.
Q. They would then pay whatever price per
ton they negotiated, or in the case of the county, $23
a ton, and then all of that greenwaste would be dumped
in this area?
A. It would be unloaded, dumped, tipped,
whatever, yes, in that area there.
Q. Okay. And prior to -- do you recall, not
the date, but do you recall the time when the tipping
area was on the concrete pad before this?
A. Yes.

Page 76
Q. And was there greenwaste in this same
area that I used to call the perimeter of the sinkhole?
Was there greenwaste in that area before Natural
Resources used it for a tipping area?
A. No.
Q. So it's fair to say then that Natural
Resources was paid tipping fees for the greenwaste that
was dumped in this area off the pad?
A. Yes.
Q. Then it was Natural Resources'
responsibility to grind and process that greenwaste
under the contract?
A. Yes.
Q. And, yet, they billed Knox County for
reimbursement of $27,500?
A. Again, I have no knowledge of the -- you
know, when that came in. Only after the fact. I don't
know if the county actually paid the individual that
did it or if the county reimbursed. I don't have that
specific knowledge.
Q. Well, as the contract administrator for
Knox County, if Knox County reimbursed $27,500 to
Natural Resources that it had paid to Matthew Grinding
to grind up this waste that Natural Resources had
already been paid to grind, would that be right?

Page 77
A. Would it be right?
Q. For Knox County to reimburse them?
A. Under the terms of the contract, the
contractor would be responsibile for grinding. I
couldn't speak to issues that were outside of the
contract, which may have been negotiated by another
party.
Q. You mean, John Evans?
A. Yes.
Q. Well, were you a witness to any of those
discussions --
A. No.
Q. -- by John Evans?
A. No.
Q. Did you first learn of this payment of
$27,500 after Mr. Evans's death?
A. I seem to have recalled hearing about it
prior to that time, but well after the time that it was
actually negotiated or actually transpired.
Q. Who did you hear about it from?
A. I seem to recall, just kind of picked it
up in hearing John Evans's conversations with a third
party, you know, perhaps on the phone.
Q. Do you know who that might have been?
A. No.

Summery description of Fasle Claims

Rockett training





False Claims Law states that the contractor if found guilty must pay knox county's attorneys fees and pay tipple what was taken. In this case that would be over $1,000,000 plus reimbursing knox county for Dean Farmers bill. If knox county releases the contractor by signing an agreement and the plaintiff prevails then knox county will have to pay the plaintiff instead of the contractor. This happened a few years ago with a termite contract and knox county is now having to pay the plaintiff instead of the contractor.






The RFP represented that the contractor would probably receive 15,000 tons per year of green waste, however this was not guaranteed. It also stated that it was the contractors responsibility to cause that volume to increase. (see below)



WhenI began to ask about the money owed NRR stated that they didn't owe us because they didn't get but a fraction of the 15,000 tons. Further Bruce Wuethrick told commission they were only getting around 10,000 tons annualy. This is the original number of inbound tons for 2005 as reported by NRR in 2006. As you can see below NRR was reporting 30,000 total inbound ton for 2005 and 15,000 tons of green waste. Then when I started asking about why they had not paid, NRR said they didn't get 15,000 tons of green waste in 2005, and therefore did not owe Knox County. Notice that NRR classified pallets as green waste in this document.



Below is the 2004 inbound tons as originally reported by NRR. NRR originally reported about 15,000 tons of green waste for 2004. Then when I started asking about the money NRR claimed they only got 9,396 tons that year and therefore they didn't owe the money claiming contract violation.



Below is what was reported to the state for 2003 for NRR, over 15,000 tons of green waste. Pallets are green waste. yard waste plus wood waste equals green waste. NRR reported pallets as green waste prior to my asking about this money. But when I started asking about the money NRR said they only received 9,665 tons of green waste for 2003. They got more yard waste alone than that.




Below is a letter from NRR to Knox County for the 2003 green waste volumes. How did NRR get over 10,000 tons of green waste for 2003 by September but receive only 9,600 tons for the whole year as they are claiming now.



Below is what NRR said was their total green waste after I started asking about the money. I think they deliberately understated the inbound tons to avoid paying knox county.



Are pallets green waste?

Definition from knox county solid waste web site;
“Greenwaste is defined as any material generated from lawn maintenance, landscaping or land clearing activities. It can include leaves, limbs, tree trunks, grass clippings, brush and weeds. It can also include other clean wood material such as pallets, framing lumber and plywood.”

Definition from Natural Resources Recovery web site;
“What is Greenwaste?
- Leaves, limbs, logs, branches, brush, grass clippings, shrubs, even whole trees.
- Clean unpainted, unstained, or otherwise untreated lumber like pallets, framing wood and plywood.
- Whether produced by homeowners, businesses, or land-clearing companies, these materials can be recycled by Natural Resources Recovery.”

Definition from pamphlet distributed by knox county and NRR;

“What is Greenwaste?
- Leaves, limbs, logs, branches, brush, grass clippings, shrubs, even whole trees.
- Clean unpainted, unstained, or otherwise untreated lumber like pallets, framing wood and plywood.
- Whether produced by homeowners, businesses, or land-clearing companies, these materials can be recycled.”





Later the contractor claimed they didn't owe because they didn't get sludge composting at the forks facility that they were supposed to get in 2003. Bruce Wuethrick stated that this was because sink holes at the solway facility took the money that was originally planned for the forks facility. Turns out the sink holes didn't happen until 2004 so that story didn't hold water. Turns out that NRR signed a contract on April 21 2003 agreeing to operate a scrap tire program at the forks facilety and ran the tire program where the composting of sewer sludge was originally planned.



Finally the contractor said they didn't owe knox county because the previous contractor's unauthorized removal of all the material when he left. It was the previos contractors right to do this. If the contractor had it was his right to but evidence indicates that the previous contractor left topsoil, leaf compost, single grind mulch, green waste, etc.. according to depositions of the knox county green waste coordinator and this letter from John Evans where he gave NRR permission to sale the previous inventory and keep the money. (see below)



Now the contractor is claiming that they do not owe because knox county demanded they stop taking certain waste streams. However the record reflects that the material that was turned away was done so voluntarily as the material was not pre-treated to an acceptable level by the waste water plant.


Their were other false claims as well. Numbers submitted to Bruce Wuethrick by NRR reflected $140,000 dollars owed. Later it was discovered the sales numbers were much higher. I think these numbers were under stated to Bruce in order to lower the financial obligation to knox county. See below


Below is NRR's own sales numbers reflecting over $300,000 owed,




Also the contractor invoiced knox county in 2007 the amount of $25,600 dollars for grinding "existing logs and brush". Evedence reflected that the brush was not preexisting and that NRR had already been paid to dispose of this brush and then invoiced knox county a second time for this.



Double invoice testimony by Rodney rockett


Page 74 starting with line 10

Q. What would be a better way to describe
this area than that TDEC required materials to be moved
that had been the tipping area?
A. What would be a better area?
Q. Yeah. How would you describe that area
better than perimeter of the sinkhole?
A. I would say just outside of the fence
line, just off of the finished surface pad, to the
front of the pad.
Q. How long was Natural Resources operating
this as their tipping area off of the pad?
A. That I do not recall.
Q. Can you give me an estimate? Was it over
a year, two years?
A. I don't believe it was in excess of a
year. The exact time, it was shifted back. I cannot

Page 75
say.
Q. Are there records that would show the
period of time that was the tipping area?
A. No. I mean, there wouldn't be a record
that showed a timeframe. Perhaps when the stone was
put down, you know, as a kind of an improved driving
area, there may be records relevant to the purchase of
that stone and delivery -- I'm just surmising -- that
would indicate when it began. But as far as when it
ended, I couldn't say.
Q. For whatever period of time that was, as
I understand it then, customers would bring trucks into
the scales first to be weighed so they could be
invoiced?
A. Correct.
Q. They would then pay whatever price per
ton they negotiated, or in the case of the county, $23
a ton, and then all of that greenwaste would be dumped
in this area?
A. It would be unloaded, dumped, tipped,
whatever, yes, in that area there.
Q. Okay. And prior to -- do you recall, not
the date, but do you recall the time when the tipping
area was on the concrete pad before this?
A. Yes.

Page 76
Q. And was there greenwaste in this same
area that I used to call the perimeter of the sinkhole?
Was there greenwaste in that area before Natural
Resources used it for a tipping area?
A. No.
Q. So it's fair to say then that Natural
Resources was paid tipping fees for the greenwaste that
was dumped in this area off the pad?
A. Yes.
Q. Then it was Natural Resources'
responsibility to grind and process that greenwaste
under the contract?
A. Yes.
Q. And, yet, they billed Knox County for
reimbursement of $27,500?
A. Again, I have no knowledge of the -- you
know, when that came in. Only after the fact. I don't
know if the county actually paid the individual that
did it or if the county reimbursed. I don't have that
specific knowledge.
Q. Well, as the contract administrator for
Knox County, if Knox County reimbursed $27,500 to
Natural Resources that it had paid to Matthew Grinding
to grind up this waste that Natural Resources had
already been paid to grind, would that be right?

Page 77
A. Would it be right?
Q. For Knox County to reimburse them?
A. Under the terms of the contract, the
contractor would be responsibile for grinding. I
couldn't speak to issues that were outside of the
contract, which may have been negotiated by another
party.
Q. You mean, John Evans?
A. Yes.
Q. Well, were you a witness to any of those
discussions --
A. No.
Q. -- by John Evans?
A. No.
Q. Did you first learn of this payment of
$27,500 after Mr. Evans's death?
A. I seem to have recalled hearing about it
prior to that time, but well after the time that it was
actually negotiated or actually transpired.
Q. Who did you hear about it from?
A. I seem to recall, just kind of picked it
up in hearing John Evans's conversations with a third
party, you know, perhaps on the phone.
Q. Do you know who that might have been?
A. No.






THE STATE LIMIT FOR FECAL COLIFORM IS 1,000 MPN/GM. LOOK AT HOW SOME OF THE PRODUCTS TESTED AS HIGH AS 1,000,000 MPN/GM. THESE SAMPLES WERE TAKEN DIRECTLY FROM THE RETAIL BINS. And the public who had already purchased this material was not warned! Then knox county commission was told "everything passed". These were knox county's own tests!





From Depositions;

EXAMINATION BY MR. WIGLER:
Q. Mr. Wuethrich, do you know how many
milligrams per kilogram of fecal coliform the EPA
permits in testing mulch?
A. I do not.
Q. Salmonella?
A. I do not.
Q. Where did you get your information about
Bruce Wuethrich
Gibson Court Reporting
865-546-7477
Page 92
the EPA that you testified about?
A. From discussions with Rodney Rockett.
Q. You're not an expert in that field --
A. No, I'm not.
Q. -- by any sense?
A. Don't. Not. Don't want to be.
Q. After the product tested positive for, I
believe, you said E. coli, could that be fecal
coliform?
A. I don't -- to be candid with you, I may
be using the words interchangeably.
Q. Okay. But after it tested positive, were
those products removed from sale?
A. Yes.
Q. Tell me about that?
A. As soon as we found out they were tested
positive, I told Tom Salter not only to contact TDEC,
but to contact Natural Resources and let them know.
Pull the product out and go out and verify, and this
all took place in the timeframe of six or seven hours.
I told him to contact Natural Resources,
pull the product from sale, contact TDEC and let them
know what we found. And to follow up with Natural
Resources by doing a site visit to verify that it had
actually been removed.
Bruce Wuethrich
Gibson Court Reporting
865-546-7477
Page 93
Q. Now, were any of the consumers that had
purchased these materials informed?
A. That I do not know.



Notice the comments section at the bottom of the violation written to the contractor after a surprise inspection. LOOK WHAT THEY WERE SPRAYING ON THE MULCH!!



Read Below about the arsenic.



Salmonella
Salmonella is described by the FDA to have an infections dose of 15 to 20 cells. The EPA limits the sale of compost materials with a salmonella count of over 3 per every 4 grams. Below is what was sold by knox county and their contractor at the solway facility. The salmonella count was 80 times higher than the EPA rule 503 health and safety standards the fecal coliform standards also failed. Acording to e-mails from TDEC this material was pulled from the market but the public who already purchased this were not warned.





Other documents