Different operating name, same owner, same stink. This is the snippet, in total, from today's Globe:
EVERETT
SMELLY SITUATION - Following months of complaints about odors emanating from the Wood Waste of Boston facility off Revere Beach Parkway, the Board of Aldermen is sending a certified letter to company owner William Thibeault (my emphasis) asking him to attend the board's next meeting at 7 p.m. on June 9 in City Hall. City Clerk Michael Matarazzo said that several months ago, acting on the board's request, he sent a letter to Thibeault about ongoing odor issues. "His lawyers wrote back and said, essentially, there is no odor, and it's not coming from us," Matarazzo said. Odor complaints are not new to Thibeault, who also owns the Crow Lane Landfill in Newburyport, where city and state authorities have issued violation notices and fines for odor and other problems. The Everett aldermen also will probably ask Thibeault about the status of two other parcels of land: the old City Yards on East Elm Street that has been the focus of litigation between the city and Thibeault; and a 32-acre parcel near Thibeault's facility on the parkway that has been eyed for development. -Kay Lazar
I also found this online, from the EPA:
(Boston, Mass. - July 12, 2006) - Wood Waste of Boston, an Everett, Mass. construction and demolition debris recycling facility, is facing a fine of up to $157,500 and is required to take actions to prevent pollution from entering the Mystic River watershed. An EPA complaint against Wood Waste alleges that the Everett company violated the federal Clean Water Act by discharging storm water from industrial activities on its site to the Island End River without a permit, and for failing to prepare a storm water pollution prevention plan.
This man is beyond reasoning with, making deals with, etc. Don't forget the meeting tomorrow night, 7:30, Council chambers.
Sunday, June 1, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Sure we can go after small polluters that are causing ‘noticeable’ pollution, but as long as EPA does not consider nitrogenous waste (urine and protein) pollution, we will never implement the Clean Water Act, as it was intended or improve our open water’s quality. This waste not only, like fecal waste, exerts an oxygen demand, but also is a fertilizer for algae and aquatic plant growth, causing eutrophication and eventually dead zones. Sadly this type of pollution falls in the ‘unnoticeable’ pollution category and therefore is ignored.
The reason EPA ignored this pollution is caused by a worldwide incorrect applied pollution test, EPA used to base its NPDES discharge permits on. Although EPA in 1984 acknowledged this incorrect use, in stead of correcting the test, it allowed an alternative test and by doing so officially ignored this type of pollution and by doing so lowered the goal of the CWA from 100% treatment to a measly 35% treatment, without notifying Congress, while allowing open waters to be used as giant urinals.
Other problems caused by this incorrect applied test are that we do not know the real performance of a sewage treatment plants and have no idea what the effluent waste loading is on receiving water bodies, besides the possibility that such plants are designed to treat the wrong waste in sewage.
Want to know more visit www.petermaier.net and read the description of this test (BOD) in the Technical PDF section.
Post a Comment