mckeesy marsh & beaver creek testimony

7/29/2019 Mckeesy Marsh & Beaver Creek Testimony

1/4

Ruth M. King DNR Nonpoint Source Coordinator/Storm Water Specialist February 14, 2013

Thomas E.Woletz, P.E Senior Manager, Special Projects Coordinator

Dear Tom Woletz and Ruth King,

The issues related to the Mckeesey Marsh and Beaver Creek pollution have been raised and

discussed. However there are unresolved issues that must be brought to light. Having grown upwith the opportunity to intimately observe and interact with the marsh and creek for sixty years,

our knowledge level of the area and how it functions throughout the year is extensive. If we add tthat intimate interaction, our combined scientific and practical experiences and skills in chemistryphysics, hydrology, geology, mining & metallurgy, thermodynamics, statics & dynamics,

research, project investigation, design of experiment and other higher level problem solvingabilities, we are confident that independent scientists would affirm our findings.

We must ask: Does the DNR have a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for researching and

investigating any project such as Beaver Creek? If they dont, the DNR needs to get a good one; ithey do and it was followed, the DNR needs to improve it.The missteps, missed opportunities an

the unfounded assumptions in this investigation are to say the least, very disappointing. Our

assessments of your findings are discussed below:

1. Let us consider the report of muddy water in the median of US Hwy 53 on November 5, 2012.

Regardless of who reported this discharge and how overloaded the DNR staff is, priority has to be

given to events that have the potential to do irreparable damage. Even two days could make all thdifference in the health of the creek and marsh. When the conservation officer was taking picture

whydid he not employ a proper sampling procedure and take 2 or 3 gallons of the muddy waterfor analysis? Had that been done the DNR would have had a blue print of that waste water

discharge; and when Great Northern admitted that it was theirs, you then could check any future

discharges against that analysis to prove it was water discharge from industrial sand production.

Guessing as to whether the slush was stained by creek water or wet-plant waste water would notbe necessary.

2. Why did those that looked at the muddy water in the median come to the conclusion that thismuddy water had not entered Beaver Creek? Did not any of the investigators understand the area

and why the invasive species canary grass was there? (This canary grass has destroyed thenative marsh grass and other native plants throughout the marsh.) The canary grass by itself

should have been a clue that they were looking at Beaver Creek. We do not see any discussion asto whether at any time the investigators examined Beaver Creek down stream from the processing

plants until January 23, 2013.

3. The statement made by Great Northern that they forgot to calculate the drain water in their sand

piles may pass as an excuse, but Great Northern Management was told by us that the storm pondwas not sufficient to contain all the spilling and draining water lost from the washing process.

Regardless of the rationale expressed, the discharges have happened. These last two discharges(Jan. 9 and 23-26, 2013) seem to be smaller than the two discharges on or before December 7,

2012. We believe the last two discharges to be the result of Great Northern breaking into one ormore piles of sand where the water inside of the pile was not frozen and flowed out into Beaver

Creek. Regardless of the origin of the water, there were two additional discharges. Whether or no


2/4

they quit washing on December 7, 2012, is not evidence to say that Great Northern was notresponsible for the last two discharges.

4. For whatever reasons, the discharge of December 6 & 7, 2012, has not been addressed. TheDNR has jumped from the discharge that was observed on November 2, 2012, (remnants

photographed by Mark and Denise Ziperski on November 3, 2012 - see last page) to the out flowof January 9 & 26, 2012. The photographs taken of not-yet-frozen muddy water at the bridge on

29th Street have been ignored, and no explanation of why the muddy water looks exactly like themuddy water in the median of US 53 has been offered. John took great care to document that the

discharged waste water seen at the 29th Street bridge flowed beyond the County Line Road bridge(Ref. December 6 & 7).

5. Several people have observed that when these discharges cease, the creek clears up in 1 to 5days at the most. On November 2, 2012, John and one other witness clearly saw the creamed

coffee-colored water flowing at County Road SS. On November 3, 2012, Mark and DeniseZiperski took photos of the creek that was nearly clear except for the remnants of flocked white

sand. These photographs and observation by others clearly prove that tannic acid was not the caus

of the muddy water going down Beaver Creek. The fact is that tannic acid staining of the creek

water, in a stagnant beaver pond, at the height of the summer-organic decomposition istranslucent, not opaque as this muddy water is. Adding this to the fact that organic decomposition

in marshes nearly ceases by early November, makes the hypothesis that this colored water comingup over the ice at 29th Street and the ice at County SS is just normal tannic coloring (and not fine

clay and silica silt) is simply not true and not supported by the facts. In sixty years of observation

we have seen overflows of water on top of the ice at various places along the creek, but they all

appeared as just that, creek water on top of the ice with no real color in the water so that you thinknothing of it. This is the first time in 60 years that we have ever observed this coffee-colored

muddy water on top of the ice. The only change is that contaminated water has been discharged

into Beaver Creek.

6. Freezing a bottle of muddy slush over night does not prove anything as to what the watercontains. It does not prove that tannic coloring, chemicals or other materials are, or are not, in the

water. What does happen, (if you let the water thaw in a clear container) is that the clay and ultrafine silica sand will settle to the bottom of the glass. While the muddy water in the median of US

53 does not seem to settle out, but the particles in the thawed glass of water do, can be explained.The process of freezing the muddy water nullifies the zeta potential (or charges) of the particles,

allowing them to drop to the bottom of the glass. Both freezing and boiling do strange things to

materials contained in water. Another anomaly that demonstrates the effects of cold would be its

effect on the pure aluminum metal. Pure aluminum becomes more ductile as you cool it down toabsolute zero (-460 F). Most other metals become more brittle.

7. When you are investigating an entity, you should rarely ask them a question that you dont

already know the answer to. It was a good piece of investigation when you asked Great Northern

When did they last wash sand? However, their answer of December 7, 2012 should have

triggered you to think of the discharge documented by John. That was the last piece of informatiothat was needed. Now you had their admission that they were producing waste water on the 7th of

December, and if you exclude Chieftain, the muddy water documented at 29th Street and near theCounty Line Road could have only come from Great Northern. This was a second discharging of


3/4

waste water into the creek. When Great Northern stated that they terminated washing onDecember 7, 2012, you had an opportunity to ask many pointed questions about the December 6t

& 7th discharge. Were there questions on this topic? And if so, what were the answers?

8. If samples of water had been taken on November 7th and tested properly, markers or identifyin

characteristics of Great Northerns sand would have been established. If sufficient quantities ofslush had been taken, proper tests would have determined if the discoloration was caused by a

discharge from Great Northerns processing site. Sufficient ice chips from the discolored flowoccurring on January 9th, now frozen on top of the ice over Beaver Creek, should have been

collected for testing as well. The January 9th flow travelled downstream farther than the eye coulsee. It is unlikely that ground water seepage could be that voluminous. Since the water from

January 9, 2013, remains frozen on top of the ice, one can still obtain samples. One would alsoneed a sample from Great Northerns storm pond (or possibly from the median of Hwy. 53).

9. How pumping the waste water back to the clarifier was going to solve the problem escapes us.Obviously, their pond and recycle water system was, and probably still is, over loaded. It is our

opinion that the cold weather brought an end to the discharges until they were working with the

sand piles again. What part of the operation the water came from is not important. (Note that

hypotheses, theories, conjectures and opinions do not prove or disprove anything.)

10. Conclusions based on the fact that natural phenomenon could, or did, cause the water to be th

color that we are seeing on or through the top of the ice simply does not hold up to scrutiny. Wewill agree that hydrostatic pressure forces the seepage water to flow under the culverts via the

gravel that is below the frost line, but we must add that the same mechanism will also force themuddy water under the culverts as well. We already have observed that the creek is cleaned up by

ground water seepage in 1 to 5 days after the plant site quits discharging muddy water into the

creek. What you are seeing in the ice, in your photographs, is diluted muddy silt. If you had taken

an ice axe and collected some of the overflow ice of January 9, 2012, or allowed the slush andwater in the bottle that froze over night to melt and settle out, you would have seen fine clay and

silt in the bottom of the bottle. I am assuming that you allowed the water in the bottle to melt; didyou look at it before you threw it out? Was there enough water to test?

11. Even now, one could probably cut a hole in the ice where the muddy water is in the median o

US Hwy. 53. If the cold water has not de-activated the ions, a DNR agent could probably collectmuddy water samples. (We addressed some of this in #8.)

In summary: We respectfully and strongly suggest that you start over, taking samples where it ispossible and process them in a controlled manner, generate answers from what you know to be

true, and address the event documented on December 6 & 7, 2012. The conclusions drawn fromthis investigation are questionable. Because time and equipment was not available, the time that

was spent resulted in erroneous conclusions.

Sincerely,

J ohn P. Drost Ph.D Professor EmeritusMathematics, University of Wisconsin, Eau Claire

J ames J . Drost BS, MS Mining and Metallurgical Engineering, University of Wisconsin, Madison


4/4

Photo #1 November 3, 2012 Photo #2 November 3, 2012

The above photographs were taken at the crossing of Beaver Creak and Cty. Road SS by Mark an

Denise Ziperski on November 3, 2012. This was the day after ( November 2, 2012) John Drost

and another witness observed muddy water at the crossing of Beaver Creek and Cty. Road SS.

Please note in Photo #1 that there is flocked fine silica sand. This indicates that Great Northern is

probably using polyacrylamide as they said they would.

Please note that Photo #2 shows some flocked fine silica and foam. The white foam indicates tha

Beaver Creeks flow rate was recently higher as was witnessed on November 2, 2012.

Note that neither photo shows any staining from organic material decomposition.

mckeesy marsh & beaver creek testimony

Documents