Beede Waste Oil, Plaistow, NH

General Forum for school (except TRSD) and town issues in Atkinson, Derry, Fremont, Hampstead, Kingston, Newton, Plaistow, and Sandown. Please continue to post TRSD items in "Timberlane General".

Beede Waste Oil, Plaistow, NH

Postby safety frog » Thu Oct 14, 2010 6:40 am

News Release
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
New England Regional Office
October 13, 2010

Contact: Dave Deegan, (617) 918-1017
Access Routes Established for Cleanup of Beede Waste Oil Superfund Site in Plaistow, N.H.
(Boston, Mass. – Oct. 13, 2010) - EPA, in consultation with the N.H. Dept. of Environmental Services, has announced the preferred route of access to the Beede Site necessary for the performance of the cleanup. After careful study of seven identified potential access routes, EPA believes that “Access Route D,” with “Access Route A1” as a back-up option, presents the best option for access to the site.
The two access routes comply with federal and state laws and regulations, and can be implemented in a way that will minimize impacts to local residential areas and infrastructure, to the extent practicable, such that material can be conveyed to and from the site in the most efficient, cost effective, safe and non-disruptive manner possible during site cleanup activities.
EPA recognizes that all access routes present some level of inconvenience or impact to local residents and infrastructure during the estimated 9-to-18 months of trucking. But the 40-acre Beede Site cannot be cleaned up without soil removal. Potential risks to human health and the environment, and to local drinking water wells, cannot be adequately addressed unless contaminated soil is removed. To help inform its decision, EPA consulted with site neighbors, Plaistow Town officials, the NHDES, the NH Department of Transportation, and T.Y. Lin International Consultants (traffic experts hired by EPA), as well as the written evaluation of all possible site access routes provided by the Beede Performing Group, the parties responsible for the cleanup, as part of its court agreement.
Access Route D involves creating a temporary access point onto Main Street (Route 121A), at the intersection with Danville Road, from which trucks will travel to Route 125. Access Route A1 was chosen as the backup option for further evaluation if it is discovered that Access Route D cannot be implemented. Access Route A1 involves having trucks turn left onto Kelley Road and then left again onto Main Street, before heading to Route 125. It is important to note that the exact A1 driveway location has not yet been confirmed. Design logistics for using these two points of access will be further evaluated as part of the Preliminary Cleanup Design Report. A carefully engineered traffic control plan (including a plan to avoid, to the extent possible, project related trucking during periods of school busing), accompanied by appropriate roadway improvements, will make either Access Route D or Access Route A1 safe for the limited-duration project-related trucking activity.
The other routes considered and eliminated are as follows:
Route A2 is the site’s existing entrance and was eliminated because of the dip and bend in the road which limits the trucks’ line of sight exiting the site, the road condition, as well as the number of Kelley Road residents that trucks would pass on this relatively narrow residential road. Although these issues could be addressed through planning; in comparison to Access Routes D and A1, more measures would need to be taken to do so.
Route B would involve building a bridge over Kelley Brook and its high quality wetlands and floodplain to Old County Road. Although this route would have trucks passing a low number of residential properties en-route to Route 125, it does not comply with state and federal laws and regulations regarding wetlands and floodplains which prohibit destruction of wetlands and floodplains where there is a practicable alternative to such activity. Because there are other practicable access routes for the Beede Site, Access Route B cannot be selected.
Routes C1a, C1b, C2, which would direct trucks directly onto Route 125, were eliminated because the NH Department of Transportation regards these options as the least desirable and critically, use of access roads C1a and C1b would impact floodplains, and federal and state laws prohibit impact to a floodplain if practicable alternatives exist, which they do for Beede.
The $50 million Beede Waste Oil Superfund Site cleanup involves:
- Excavation and off-site disposal of contaminated shallow soil, sediment from Kelley Brook, and soil piles (approximately 78,000 cubic yards);
- Treatment of contaminated deep soil using soil vapor extraction technology;
- Groundwater extraction and treatment;
- Land use restrictions; and
- Long-term monitoring of groundwater, surface water, and sediment.
During the period of greatest truck activity (during removal of contaminated soil), the numbers of trucks entering and leaving the site could vary from approximately 30 to 43 trucks per day and take 9 to 18 months to complete (estimates take into account avoiding school bus operations). The longer the trucking duration, the fewer number of trucks will be used per day.
The Beede Performing Group, under the supervision of EPA and NHDES, will develop a Preliminary Cleanup Design Report for Access Routes D and A1. It is expected that the full design work will be completed in 2011. The construction schedule will be determined as part of the completed design. Some cleanup could begin in 2011, but the bulk of the cleanup is expected to start in 2012 and last approximately four years (trucking of contaminated soil and clean fill is only one part of the effort and is expected to take about 9 to 18 months). The groundwater treatment will continue until cleanup standards are meet which is estimated to take 15 years after the on-site source of groundwater contamination has been treated.
More information on EPA clean up work at Beede Superfund site: (http://www.epa.gov/region1/superfund/sites/beede )
# # #
Follow EPA New England on Twitter: http://twitter.com/epanewengland
Dennis F
safety frog
 
Posts: 840
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2006 9:40 am
Location: Danville

Re: Beede Waste Oil, Plaistow, NH

Postby Rob C » Fri Oct 15, 2010 7:39 am

This is for the newer people in town (moved in after 2000). Sounds like this was a mess! Happy the EPA is around to take care of these situations.

~~~~~~~~~~

Beede Waste Oil Site Plaistow, NH EPA Site Update (PDF)

EPA wrote:Site Description

For detailed information, visit:

Regional Beede Waste Oil Site Homepage
National Beede Waste Oil Site Progress Profile (the link provided didn't get me anywhere useful)

The Beede Waste Oil site is located at 7 - 11 Kelley Road in Plaistow, New Hampshire. The site is comprised of two parcels of land totaling approximately 40.6 acres. Parcel 1 (21.6 acres) housed the former commercial waste oil reclamation and asphalt batching operations. Parcel 2 (19 acres) is primarily undeveloped land. In the fall of 1983, chemical contamination was discovered in a residential well near the site. The well was taken out of service and an alternate water supply was provided. The site owner conducted several site investigations which verified the presence of contamination in soil and groundwater. The site owner did not respond to subsequent court orders to initiate cleanup activities. At the time, approximately 100 above ground storage tanks and 800 drums were located on the site with a combined storage capacity of about 3 million gallons. These tanks and drums were removed by EPA and the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NHDES) from July 1996 to August 1997. Several large soil piles, containing varying levels of contaminants, were also covered by EPA and NHDES. Several oil areas, floating on top of the groundwater table, are present at the site which would periodically seep into Kelley Brook. NHDES contained the seepage using booms and sorbents until November 1997 when EPA installed an interceptor trench to prevent further seepage into the brook. The interceptor trench continues to be maintained by EPA. A vacuum enhanced extraction system was also installed by EPA in February 2000 to actively remove floating product from the site. The extraction system removed over 90,000 gallons of free product from the subsurface through Fall 2005 when its operation was discontinued. Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in groundwater continue to migrate off site and, to date, have impacted 14 adjacent residential wells.
Rob C
Rob C
 
Posts: 2021
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 10:51 am

Re: Beede Waste Oil, Plaistow, NH

Postby safety frog » Sun Oct 17, 2010 6:46 pm

This site is a perfect example of what a failure the EPA Superfund program actually is. Beede Oil was a NH licensed used oil recycling facility. Many small and large legitimate firms, towns, cities and the like sent used oil there, to a NH licensed recycling facility and actually paid to get rid of the oil legally. The EPA through the Superfund program, has sent large bills to close to 2,000 parties, to now pay for the cleanup of the site. If the EPA had been doing there job, overseeing the NH DES and its oil recycling licensing program, then these firms, who tried to comply with the law, would not be paying through the nose to clean the site up after paying to properly recycle the oil.

It has taken the EPA over 16 year, since 1994, to get to this point at the Plaistow site, in a very long drawn out cumbersome process that is riddled with problems and inefficiencies that cost the tax payers millions of dollars to overcome. Remember that Senator Al Gore chaired the first senate committees that formed the basis for the Superfund Program in the late 1970’s. The EPA needs to revamp the entire process and this site is just one example. This program is nothing to be happy about.

For another local example look at the Kingston barrel site on Route 125, where after digging up and incinerating all the top soil, putting it back into the ground the EPA superfund site is now drilling hundreds of holes into the ground to treat the groundwater and contaminated soil, again. This site work begain in 1978 and will cost several million dollars more to clean up. Nothing to be happy with there.
Dennis F
safety frog
 
Posts: 840
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2006 9:40 am
Location: Danville

Re: Beede Waste Oil, Plaistow, NH

Postby curt » Mon Oct 18, 2010 7:39 pm

OK, but I think what you are saying is contrary to the current "tea party" or "states' rights" thinking, which says that the federal government should be cut back and the states should do as much as possible.
Curt Springer
curt
 
Posts: 5713
Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2006 1:19 am
Location: 228 Sandown Road, North Danville

Re: Beede Waste Oil, Plaistow, NH

Postby safety frog » Tue Oct 19, 2010 6:53 am

Curt, not really, in that the Superfund Act put the ball into the EPA's domain back in the early 1980's. It does not allow the state's to keep the funds or authorization to control the environmental messes. Since Superfund's inception, the tax dollars go from the locals to the federal government who has the funds, staffing and authority to police and clean up the issues. NH and the locals are at the whims of the EPA to deal with these issues, which by the very nature of the bureaucracy in time consuming, filled with administrators and lawyers and is very inefficient. If the money and the authority stayed local would it be better? I do not know. I do think the Superfund process could be improved to be more timely and responsive.

In the case of Beede, there was a break down in surveillance and enforcement as the contamination was allowed to occur. This is regardless of state’s rights or bigger federal government. Remember that prior to the mid 70’s much of the bad behavior of polluting or environment was legal such as the Kingston barrel factory site and even Love Canal in NY. It has taken society a very long time to catch up with changes that protect our environment.
Dennis F
safety frog
 
Posts: 840
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2006 9:40 am
Location: Danville

Re: Beede Waste Oil, Plaistow, NH

Postby shawn_oneil » Tue Oct 19, 2010 10:26 pm

Not being around during that time but I suspect that the state failed in its monitoring of the business. What I think is bad besides the physical clean up aspect is the liability that companies face even when they did everything correctly. I do not think it is right to charge a company who followed the proper protocol and properly dispose of waste (oil in the case) and the license proprietor of the business is not fulfilling their duties. It is really the incompetence of gov't at both the State and Fed level as they should be monitoring these facilities.
Shawn
Shawn O'Neil


Image
The trouble with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money” –Margaret Thatcher
shawn_oneil
 
Posts: 2123
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2006 8:51 pm

Re: Beede Waste Oil, Plaistow, NH

Postby Rob C » Wed Oct 20, 2010 11:03 am

safety frog wrote:This site is a perfect example of what a failure the EPA Superfund program actually is. Beede Oil was a NH licensed used oil recycling facility. Many small and large legitimate firms, towns, cities and the like sent used oil there, to a NH licensed recycling facility and actually paid to get rid of the oil legally. The EPA through the Superfund program, has sent large bills to close to 2,000 parties, to now pay for the cleanup of the site. If the EPA had been doing there job, overseeing the NH DES and its oil recycling licensing program, then these firms, who tried to comply with the law, would not be paying through the nose to clean the site up after paying to properly recycle the oil.


shawn_oneil wrote:Not being around during that time but I suspect that the state failed in its monitoring of the business. What I think is bad besides the physical clean up aspect is the liability that companies face even when they did everything correctly. I do not think it is right to charge a company who followed the proper protocol and properly dispose of waste (oil in the case) and the license proprietor of the business is not fulfilling their duties. It is really the incompetence of gov't at both the State and Fed level as they should be monitoring these facilities.


I must say I'm amazed at my conservative, laissez faire neighbors in Danville. I believe you are calling for more government involvement and regulation?

I'm also surprised to see you aren't calling for more accountability of the business that caused the problem. Bottom line is if Beede had been responsible from the get go this wouldn't be an issue, would it?

EPA site description wrote:The site owner did not respond to subsequent court orders to initiate cleanup activities.


So if the owner isn't compliant and apparently doesn't care to be and the government is stuck with the clean up who should pay for it? Us?
Rob C
Rob C
 
Posts: 2021
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 10:51 am

Re: Beede Waste Oil, Plaistow, NH

Postby safety frog » Wed Oct 20, 2010 2:22 pm

I do not have a solution to the many Superfund problems, so I am not "happy" about the process as you for first posted. Unfortunately this site operated from the 1920's through the early 1970's when there were almost no regulations for pollution. So what they did was legal (not proper). From the 70's till 1983 the issues went unknown to the regulators and then it took from 1983 till 1994 for the regulators to act. Here it is 2010, and we are still addressing the issue at the cost of what? $50 million dollars?

Should there be better government oversight? yes. More regulations? NO, just enforce the ones they have. Huge difference.

Many things broken that could be approved was what I was trying to say. Yes the owners of the site should be responsible and should have been more responsible all along. Under RCRA, if the owners who made the pollution are not able to pay, then the firms that sent the materials to the site are required to pay. It is called cradle to grave. Is that better then you and I paying? I guess, but the process is still too long, costly, and cumbersome and needs to fixed.

If they had cleaned up the site in 1995 would it be costing over $50 million now? How many millions were spent on lawyers for the EPA and 2,000 responsible parties fighting over who was responsible to pay, the cleanup plan, and now the traffic studies and improvements? To think they actually proposed a temporary road and bridge at a cost of $1.5 million as part of the cleanup is mind boggling. They had a soil treatment plant up route 125 5 miles on another EPA site, just a few years ago where they possibly could have treated the soil versus trucking the soil hundreds of miles away.

To think back in the 70’s I actually was eating fish I caught out of the contaminated stream by the site, makes me a bit ticked off as well. Combine that with the EPA forcing us to use expensive toxic mercury containing light bulbs instead of incandescent bulbs which work very well I think they need to work on priorities.
Dennis F
safety frog
 
Posts: 840
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2006 9:40 am
Location: Danville

Re: Beede Waste Oil, Plaistow, NH

Postby shawn_oneil » Wed Oct 20, 2010 6:07 pm

safety frog wrote:Should there be better government oversight? yes. More regulations? NO, just enforce the ones they have. Huge difference.


Exactly. Look at the incompetent Federal division that oversaw the deep drilling operation in the Gulf. It is not a R or D issue it is a fundamental accountability issue. Heads needs to fly and people need to get fired.

This goes for banking regulation, EPA, etc. This is where Gov't need to do the right thing as Capitalism has it flaws. It is not economical to be environmentally friendly as it cost more. This is when Gov't oversight (true oversight and not some brain dead regulation that fulfills no purpose) is paramount. Look at the FDA, USDA (can we say recall of .5 Billion eggs)?
Shawn O'Neil


Image
The trouble with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money” –Margaret Thatcher
shawn_oneil
 
Posts: 2123
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2006 8:51 pm

Re: Beede Waste Oil, Plaistow, NH

Postby Rob C » Fri Oct 22, 2010 11:40 am

Agreed with most of what you are saying but you lost me here.

shawn_oneil wrote:It is not economical to be environmentally friendly as it cost more. This is when Gov't oversight (true oversight and not some brain dead regulation that fulfills no purpose) is paramount. Look at the FDA, USDA (can we say recall of .5 Billion eggs)?


There needs to be a balance of expense and oversight. I see the egg recall as a good thing. Should the Feds have intervened before the eggs were found to be a hazzard? If so at what expense to the taxpayers? Is it feasible? I don't know but catching them before they make too many people ill is a good thing...
Rob C
Rob C
 
Posts: 2021
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 10:51 am

Re: Beede Waste Oil, Plaistow, NH

Postby safety frog » Mon Jan 17, 2011 8:51 am

Here is a link to an article on the Kingston Superfund site. Dana is a local man from Kingston.


http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/2 ... #more-3749
Dennis F
safety frog
 
Posts: 840
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2006 9:40 am
Location: Danville

Re: Beede Waste Oil, Plaistow, NH

Postby safety frog » Mon Jan 17, 2011 8:54 am

http://www.eagletribune.com/newhampshir ... de-cleanup


January 13, 2011
DES supports Plaistow on Beede cleanup

By Cara Hogan chogan@eagletribune.com

PLAISTOW — Town leaders are fighting back against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's decision to move 210,000 tons of contaminated soil through the center of town.
The EPA had several options when choosing a truck route when it cleans up the 40-acre Beede Superfund site. In October, EPA officials chose a route that would send trucks filled with contaminated soil over a temporary access road onto Main Street at the intersection with Danville Road, and then onto Route 125. The route will be traveled by 30-ton trucks — 7,000 times over a period of nine to 18 months.
Hundreds of thousands of gallons of waste oil were dumped at Beede Waste Oil along Kelley Road from the 1920s to 1994. Some of the oil seeped into the ground and polluted nearby homeowners' wells. It was declared a federal Superfund site in 1996 and Beede's clients became responsible for the cleanup, with supervision by the EPA.
Town leaders said the EPA's chosen route presents a serious safety risk. Town Manager Sean Fitzgerald said the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services at first supported the EPA, but now agrees with the town and backs an alternate route, which would build a bridge over Kelley Brook to Old County Road.
"A letter from DES Associate Commissioner Mike Walls said, based on a number of additional reviews and assessments, they believe a bridge is permissible," Fitzgerald said. "It's a significant change to what they said before. We're very pleased to have the support from the DES."
Richard Pease, supervisor of the Superfund section of the DES, confirmed his department has changed its stance.
"In September, we said option B would not be considered the least environmentally damaging. But, based on the safety concerns the town has raised since then, route B could be considered the least damaging alternative," Pease said.
Fitzgerald called a meeting with the EPA for yesterday, which was canceled because of snow, but will be rescheduled in the next few weeks.
"We'll continue to work with the EPA and DES to find some strategies that will help us not only clean up the site as quickly as possible, but do it in the safest manner possible," Fitzgerald said.
He said both police Chief Stephen Savage and fire Chief John McArdle have safety objections to the EPA's chosen route.
"They don't believe transporting contaminated waste from the Beede site to Main Street is a safe method of transportation," Fitzgerald said. "We're concerned that's going to bring contaminated material right to the middle of a very busy Route 125 construction project. It's going to raise all sorts of risks we believe could be avoided."
According to a study by the town, a bridge over Kelley Brook would have the least impact on the town, sending trucks past fewer houses and putting them on town roads for the shortest distance. Fitzgerald said keeping town residents safe is his top priority.
Pease said he will attend the meeting with the town and EPA officials, and the DES will present data in support of the alternate route.
"The EPA is sticking with their decision," Pease said. "But we'll be asking them to reconsider. It's not a matter of supporting the town, it's a matter of choosing the best alternative."
Dennis F
safety frog
 
Posts: 840
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2006 9:40 am
Location: Danville

Re: Beede Waste Oil, Plaistow, NH

Postby Rob C » Sat Dec 03, 2011 11:23 am

At the last School Board meeting (12/1) we were presented, for the first time, with the details of the Beede Superfund site. The presentation was by Plaistow officials and the focus was on changing the transportation route for the trucks removing the toxic soil.

The short of it is this. 3 million gallons PF oil were spilled into the soil. Removal of this will take approximately 80 to 100 trucks per DAY for 5 years. The EPA and Beede group selected a route that exits the property, requiring a new road and traffic light installation, where Danville Road intersects route 121A. Plaistow has asked that the route exit from the opposite end of the property onto Old County Road. This route requires a bridge to be built for ~ 2 - 3 hundred thousand dollars. The total expense is 50 million. The Beede group will pay for all of this not taxpayers. The Beeded group includes Exxon-Mobile and Cumberland Farms among many others.

We were presented with this information because several hundred new and inexperienced teenage drivers travel through the intersection indicated as the exit route for the 80 - 100 trucks per day. Not to mention most buses transporting from the HS and MS and many more children waiting for buses compared to the Old County Road exit. Tis seems irresponsible to me. The Board is preparing letters to our federal reps and the EPA. We also plan to invite them to sit before us to discuss.

What's also disturbing about this is the Beede group's claim in their report to the EPA that they met with the "Plaistow School Board." this is an entity that does not exist as you know and they never met with anyone from Timberlane.

My hope is that the exit from the property that impacts our children the least is chosen. This is clearly the Old County Road option. Yes a bridge must be built BUT it is at the expense of the Beede Group, the companies being held responsible for this mess in the first place.

You can watch the presentation here: http://vimeo.com/33050758. It is the first item on the agenda so it's not too far in.

I have a PDF of the presentation if anyone would like them posted let me know.
Rob C
Rob C
 
Posts: 2021
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 10:51 am

Re: Beede Waste Oil, Plaistow, NH

Postby shawn_oneil » Sat Dec 03, 2011 4:04 pm

wow! That is about 80K to 100K truckloads. That is going to be one big hole. I do agree that staying away from the school route is the best alternative.
Shawn

ps. At 30 yards per truckload that equates to 3 million cubic yards of dirt. A football field size that is 562 yards deep.
Last edited by shawn_oneil on Sun Dec 04, 2011 10:17 am, edited 1 time in total.
Shawn O'Neil


Image
The trouble with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money” –Margaret Thatcher
shawn_oneil
 
Posts: 2123
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2006 8:51 pm

Re: Beede Waste Oil, Plaistow, NH

Postby Rob C » Sun Dec 04, 2011 10:08 am

My understanding is they have to replace what they remove so....about half that amount.
Rob C
Rob C
 
Posts: 2021
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 10:51 am

Next

Return to Nearby Towns

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron