Transcript HB Refuse District Environmental Compliance Record

HEBRON-BRIDGEWATER
REFUSE FACILITY
HEBRON BOARD OF SELECTMEN
JOHN W. MATTHEWS, CHAIRMAN
JOHN W. DUNKLEE, VICE-CHAIRMAN
CURTIS R. MOONEY, SELECTMAN
HB Refuse District Environmental
Compliance Record




DES website at http://des.nh.gov/index.htm
Enforcement Actions and Appeals
Search For Documents By Name
DIRECTORY NAME
Click on the directory's name to view its
contents Administrative Fines Administrative
Orders Appeals Letters of Deficiency Lien
Notices Notice of Intent to Red-Tag - UST Notice
of Past Violations Notice of Proposed License
Action
HB Refuse District Environmental
Compliance Record

May 4, 2004 Administrative Fine by
Consent Agreement



Fine of $2,000.00
District failed to obtain authorization to
burn brush & untreated wood.
District violated Env-A 1001.04 by
burning items other than brush &
untreated wood.
May 4, 2004 Administrative Fine
by Consent Agreement continued


District agreed to pay $1,500.00 to the
Bridgewater Hebron Village School.
DES suspended $500.00 upon no
future violations for 2 years from the
effective date of the agreement.
HB Refuse District Environmental
Compliance Record

June 28, 2007 Letter of Deficiency

DES repeatedly requested the District
submit the required solid waste facility
permit application.
HB Refuse District Environmental
Compliance Record

December 3, 2009 Administrative
Order

11 Violations



Proof of financial assurance for the cost of
facility closure and post closure care of the
landfill.
Failing to submit to DES a Notice of Intent to
Close the landfill.
Failing to obtain approval from DES prior to
commencing closure construction.
December 3, 2009
Administrative Order

Violations Continued



Failed to close the landfill in accordance
with the solid waste rules and an
approved closure plan.
Failed to employ a qualified engineer to
oversee the landfill closure.
Failed to submit status reports on the
landfill closure.
December 3, 2009
Administrative Order

Violations Continued



Failed to provide record drawings of the
closed landfill to DES.
Failed to provide an engineer’s
certification to DES following completion
of the landfill cover project.
Unlawfully disposing of the chipped C&D
on the property.
December 3, 2009
Administrative Order

Violations Continued


Failed to properly manage the chipped
C&D observed on the property.
Failed to properly dispose of the ash pile
located on the property.
HB Refuse District Environmental
Compliance Record

January 27, 2009 Delinquent
Submission of Hydrogeologic
Investigation and Groundwater
Management Permit Application

October 7, 2003 the DES requested the
sampling and hydrogeologic evaluation
report.
January 27, 2009 Delinquent
Submission continued

Prepare and submit a Site
Investigation Report and a completed
Groundwater Management Permit
Application on or before April 30, 2009.
HB Refuse District Environmental
Compliance Record

May 10, 2010 Follow-up letter from the
DES

Discussing April 23, 2010 Site Visit

“… the District is not in compliance with
Administrative Order 09-085 regarding the
chipped construction debris”.
May 10, 2010 Follow-up letter

The DES received complaints alleging
the District had:


mismanaged its crushed glass, chipped
construction debris, and incinerator ash.
installed unregistered floor drains inside
the incinerator building that drain directly
to the ground surface outside the
building.
May 10, 2010 Follow-up letter


The District did not properly document
the closure and covering of the landfill
as requested by the NHDES.
As a result, CMA engineers were hired
to oversee the test pit excavations
scheduled for May 21, 2010.
May 10, 2010 Follow-up letter


Ash pile- The District requested that it
be allowed to cap the ash pile in place.
The DES is reviewing this request.
May 10, 2010 Follow-up letter

Chipped Construction Debris


Observations made during the site visit
indicate there is a significant amount of
debris at the facility.
The District was required to have this
debris removed within 60 days receipt of
the Administrative Order. The District is
not in compliance with the Order.
May 10, 2010 Follow-up letter

Floor Drains


The DES learned there are 3 floor
unregistered floor drains within the
building.
The floor drains need to be registered.
HB Refuse District Environmental
Compliance Record

June 22, 2010 Letter of Deficiency



Discharge of incinerator ash into floor
drains at the facility.
DES sampled soil at the floor drain outfall
on April 30th
The results showed the presence of 9
heavy metals.
June 22, 2010 Letter of
Deficiency

Of the 9 heavy metals, the
concentrations of lead, arsenic and
cadmium were high enough to
warrant further investigation.
June 22, 2010 Letter of
Deficiency


The District must now have a qualified
engineer or geologist licensed in NH
submit a scope of work (SOW) for an
Initial Site Characterization (ISC).
An ISC is conducted to identify the
nature and extent of soil and
groundwater contamination.
June 22, 2010 Letter of
Deficiency


The District submitted a scope of work
plan for the ISC (initial site
characterization) to the DES for
approval.
Once approval is received, the ISC will
be undertaken to determine the extent
of the contamination and required
remediation measures.
HB Refuse District Environmental
Compliance Record

June 22, 2010 Letter of Deficiency



Improper transfer and distribution of
chipped construction & demolition debris.
Transferring solid waste to an
unauthorized facility is a violation of the
solid waste rules.
Distributing solid waste for use as a
product without approval is a violation of
the solid waste rules.
HEBRON-BRIDGEWATER
REFUSE FACILITY
HEBRON BOARD OF SELECTMEN
JOHN W. MATTHEWS, CHAIRMAN
JOHN W. DUNKLEE, VICE-CHAIRMAN
CURTIS R. MOONEY, SELECTMAN
September 7, 2010
Presentation Rebuttal
1.
Claimed Hebron Commissioners had third party
review of financial records through auditors.
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
Hebron has no control of finances or bookkeeping.
The financial reports are consistently inaccurate.
Vendor bills are often paid by the Town of Bridgewater, and then
the District has to pay Bridgewater altering the expense report.
The District is consistently late paying its bills resulting in late fees
charged by vendors to the District
Hebron was not involved in the audit or auditors questions or exit
meeting because Hebron was not informed that an audit was
taking place.
Commissioner Dunklee began demanding audits at his first
District meeting in 2005. No audit was done until 2009 on the
2008 books.
September 7, 2010 Presentation
Rebuttal continued …
2.
Claimed Hebron Commissioners have failed to
install proper software to receive District financial
reports over the internet.
A.
B.
C.
Hebron’s financial software is on an older computer with an older
operating system. 2010 Warrant Articles gave us the money to
upgrade the backup system which required upgrading that computer
and operating system. It is in the process of being completed.
District reports can easily be converted to Excel spread sheets and
be e-mailed to Hebron’s commissioners and town office.
Because of previous errors in managing invoices Hebron
Commissioners do not blindly sign manifests without viewing
invoices and time cards. The district continues to cut checks without
complete manifests and for amounts greater than $1,000.00 which
by Commission voted agreement requires a vote of the Commission
to approve payment.
September 7, 2010 Presentation
Rebuttal continued …
3.
Worksheet additional unreserved fund balance is
not shown anywhere in the previous reports.
Where did it come from?
A.
Fund Balance is commonly carried over from the previous year on
the balance sheet and the District Balance Sheet was compiled by
the auditors and cannot be changed except by them.
B.
In previous years unrecorded expenses (THE ONES WE PAY
LATE FEES ON) are recorded in previous year’s closed books
after reports are presented to the Commissioners and Towns.
C.
Where is the $80,000.00 for the Capital Reserve Fund that was to
be established when the Bond was extended in 2007 reducing the
Bond payment?
September 7, 2010 Presentation
Rebuttal continued …
4.
Claims of reduced costs are due to economic
tough times reducing the amount of C & D,
reduced use of the containers for plastic and
metal, and less household waste being processed.
A.
5.
Why were bales of plastic and metal ever put into the containers in
the first place?
Claims Labor costs reduced.
A.
B.
C.
D.
What is Kieran Murphy’s title and how did he get it?
Why is the site so messy when it never was before?
Why is overtime being paid when the Commission voted only to
allow comp time?
Are the payments to Gerry and Ed recorded as labor costs?
September 7, 2010 Presentation
Rebuttal continued …
6.
Claims costs are higher than in other towns.
A.
Costs are 5 times higher than in other towns
B.
All other towns face land fill closure costs and building costs as
well as the District.
C.
No other municipality has a small incinerator. They have found
them to be too expensive to operate.
D.
The district could send its recyclables to Plymouth and combine
them with Plymouth’s and get top dollar by weight for them.
E.
2/3rds. Of the District Waste goes to landfill, why not all? Berlin
offered us land fill for $80.00/ton Bridgewater Commissioners
chose Empire at a higher price. Why?
F.
Bridgewater Commissioners knowingly sold and gave away chips
considered hazardous waste to anyone who would cart them off.
September 7, 2010 Presentation
Rebuttal continued …
7.
Claims Hebron will be obligated forever to District
if it withdraws.
A.
8.
Our attorneys liken dissolution or withdrawal to a divorce. If we
withdraw the town will have no further obligations to the district. If
the District is dissolved then DES will have a monitoring program
for whoever buys the land and the assets will be auctioned.
Claims new regulations have been planned for.
A.
Our discussions with the air compliance officer led us to believe
that initial testing would cost $50,000.00. As EPA tightens its
regulations, auditing and testing could become much more
expensive.
September 7, 2010 Presentation
Rebuttal continued …
9.
Claims to be the only small scale incinerator in
the state.
A.
B.
C.
What does that have to do with the Bridgewater-Hebron
Elementary School and is that being run efficiently?
The incinerator is 4 times larger than it needs to be. It is
inefficient and produces no marketable heat or electricity.
At the time, the incinerator was proposed as an efficient way to
dispose of trash. Financially the incinerator is costing more
than the environmental savings and we should cut our losses
by closing down the incinerator.
September 7, 2010 Presentation
Rebuttal continued …
10.
Claims to want to share the operation of the
District, but when put into practice share only
means to run the district as the Bridgewater
Commissioners direct and we keep paying a full
share.
A.
B.
C.
D.
Nepotism
Incorrect bookkeeping and reporting
Ignoring the DES
Hebron is a slave to the District. All we’re allowed to do is pay.
September 7, 2010 Presentation
Rebuttal continued …
11.
Formation of the District.
A.
B.
C.
Hebron has the only records of votes and agreements.
Bridgewater has not yet shown that it even voted to join the
District.
We can only go by what our attorney believes to be the manner in
which breaking up the district will take. Bridgewater’s
Commissioners input is at best highly questionable.
If this is of no financial consequence to Bridgewater, why the
concerted effort on their part to keep Hebron tied to the District?
September 7, 2010 Presentation
Rebuttal continued …
12.
Given all the DES violations presented, the District
as currently operated is a major polluter in the area
and the Bridgewater Commissioners are doing little
if anything to alleviate these problems.
A.
B.
Do we want to continue being a part of these unpardonable
violations?
Plymouth (for instance) has no violations on record. So the District
could be operated by a knowledgeable person without any violations.
September 7, 2010 Presentation
Rebuttal continued …
13.
When the books are closed at the end of a year
and adjusting entries complete the figures never
change and all reports are the same. Changes
have to be made in the current year.
A.
Compare the Hebron 2009 Town Report, the Bridgewater Town
Report, the September 7, 2010 report, and the audit report.
HEBRON-BRIDGEWATER
REFUSE FACILITY
HEBRON BOARD OF SELECTMEN
JOHN W. MATTHEWS, CHAIRMAN
JOHN W. DUNKLEE, VICE-CHAIRMAN
CURTIS R. MOONEY, SELECTMAN
SUMMARY
THERE ARE FOUR BASIC PROBLEMS WITH THE
PRESENT ARRANGEMENT
1. Financial costs are far too high and not in line with
other districts.
2. Environmental issues are not dealt with in a timely
manner and show disregard for requirements.
3. Bookkeeping should be given to a private firm.
4. Hebron has no input and Bridgewater does what it
wants regardless.
WHERE DO WE GO FROM
HERE???
1.
We will make every effort to change the present arrangement with
Bridgewater so that we remain a part of the district. We will need the
“yes” vote if we wish to achieve this goal.
2.
We will continue to explore all the options available to us.
3.
We will petition the court to appoint a mediator to dissolve the district if
we cannot reach a satisfactory agreement with Bridgewater.
4.
Any and all changes to the existing contract with Bridgewater and any
proposed alternatives will be brought before the Town of Hebron for
their approval before any agreements are finalized.
WHAT IF???
A.
If you vote “no”:
1. Everything stays the same. Hebron
has no input, no voice, and no
control.
2. Hebron is captive to whatever
amount is charged to Hebron each
year
3. Hebron shares responsibility for any
fines, penalties, or other costs.
WHAT IF???
B.
If you vote “yes”
1. Hebron has bargaining power to negotiate a fairer
contract with the Hebron-Bridgewater Refuse
District.
2. Various options open up if negotiations fail with
Bridgewater.
a. Plymouth Option
b. Groton Option
c. Bristol Option
d. Bestway Option
e. Hebron operating their own disposal station
f. Bestway Operating Hebron’s own disposal
station
OPERATING BUDGET
GROSS OPERATING
BUDGET
FACILITY
Plymouth
Littleton
Lisbon, Lyme &
Landaff
Lancaster
Franconia, Easton &
Sugar Hill
OPERATIONS - includes
MSW, C&D & other
expenses
REVENUES recyclables, user
fees
NET OPERATING
EXPENSES
$
319,000
$
287,000
$
32,000
$
356,900
$
302,000
$
54,900
$
190,600
$
115,000
$
75,600
$
267,000
$
173,000
$
94,000
$
240,000
$
144,000
$
96,000
$
299,500
$
79,500
$
220,000
$
364,500
$
80,500
$
284,000
$
535,030
$
535,030
Lincoln & Woodstock
Thornton, Campton &
Ellsworth
Hebron-Bridgewater
$ 35,030 included