HEBRON-BRIDGEWATER REFUSE FACILITY

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


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.


June 28, 2007 Letter of Deficiency DES repeatedly requested the District

submit the required solid waste facility permit application.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


Ash pile- The District requested that it be allowed to cap the ash pile in place.

The DES is reviewing this request.


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.


Floor Drains The DES learned there are 3 floor

unregistered floor drains within the building.

The floor drains need to be registered.


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.


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.


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.


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.




September 7, 2010 Presentation Rebuttal

1. Claimed Hebron Commissioners had third party review of financial records through auditors.

A. Hebron has no control of finances or bookkeeping.

B. The financial reports are consistently inaccurate.

C. Vendor bills are often paid by the Town of Bridgewater, and then the District has to pay Bridgewater altering the expense report.

D. The District is consistently late paying its bills resulting in late fees charged by vendors to the District

E. Hebron was not involved in the audit or auditors questions or exit meeting because Hebron was not informed that an audit was taking place.

F. Commissioner Dunklee began demanding audits at his first District meeting in 2005. No audit was done until 2009 on the 2008 books.

A.

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. 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.

B. District reports can easily be converted to Excel spread sheets and be e-mailed to Hebron’s commissioners and town office.

C. 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.

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?


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. Why were bales of plastic and metal ever put into the containers in the first place?

5. Claims Labor costs reduced.A. What is Kieran Murphy’s title and how did he get it?

B. Why is the site so messy when it never was before?

C. Why is overtime being paid when the Commission voted only to allow comp time?

D. Are the payments to Gerry and Ed recorded as labor costs?


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.


7. Claims Hebron will be obligated forever to District if it withdraws.

A. 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.

8. 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.


9. Claims to be the only small scale incinerator in the state.

A. What does that have to do with the Bridgewater-Hebron Elementary School and is that being run efficiently?

B. The incinerator is 4 times larger than it needs to be. It is inefficient and produces no marketable heat or electricity.

C. 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.


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. Nepotism

B. Incorrect bookkeeping and reporting

C. Ignoring the DES

D. Hebron is a slave to the District. All we’re allowed to do is pay.


11. Formation of the District.A. Hebron has the only records of votes and agreements.

Bridgewater has not yet shown that it even voted to join the District.

B. 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.

C. If this is of no financial consequence to Bridgewater, why the concerted effort on their part to keep Hebron tied to the District?


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. Do we want to continue being a part of these unpardonable violations?

B. Plymouth (for instance) has no violations on record. So the District could be operated by a knowledgeable person without any violations.


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.





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.

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.

WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE???

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.

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 Optionb. Groton Optionc. Bristol Optiond. Bestway Option e. Hebron operating their own disposal stationf. Bestway Operating Hebron’s own disposal

station

WHAT IF???

GROSS OPERATING BUDGET

FACILITY

OPERATIONS - includes MSW, C&D & other expenses

REVENUES - recyclables, user fees

NET OPERATING EXPENSES

Plymouth 319,000$ 287,000$ 32,000$

Littleton 356,900$ 302,000$ 54,900$ Lisbon, Lyme & Landaff 190,600$ 115,000$ 75,600$

Lancaster 267,000$ 173,000$ 94,000$

Franconia, Easton & Sugar Hill

240,000$ 144,000$ 96,000$

Lincoln & Woodstock 299,500$ 79,500$ 220,000$

Thornton, Campton & Ellsworth

364,500$ 80,500$ 284,000$

Hebron-Bridgewater535,030$ $ 35,030 included 535,030$

OPERATING BUDGET

Date post:	06-Feb-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	beyla
View:	81 times
Download:	0 times