Liberty Hill
 

There has been a huge spread done on the Liberty Hill coal tar contamination. Below are some of the stories that have been done.

What does everyone thing about this issue?

Does anyone have any information that might be helpful?

-------------------------------------------------------

Main: http://www.citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll...5/-1/CITNEWS01

PUC: http://www.citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll...014/-1/CITIZEN

PICTURES:
http://www.citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll...075/-1/CITIZEN

Lawsuit:
http://www.citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll...WS02/711240037

New Proposals:
http://www.citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll...WS02/711180061

National Grid:
http://www.citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll...WS02/711190008

EPA:
http://www.citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll...WS02/711150062

Politician Reaction:
http://www.citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll...WS02/711060036

I hope you don't think I'm "reporter bashing" - I'm not. I know who you are and know you try to do a good job... What I'm trying to say is that I have some doubts as to what you're trying to accomplish with this particular thread and don't mean to upset you with my comments... but...

... there was a thread about this not too long ago... I'll gladly bump it up for you, if that will help...

...and I sorta wonder how you gather "facts" from a forum where people post with handles, like myself, and expect to get accurate information. Additionally, your "survey" is hardly objective or scientific - it points a lot of fingers in a situation that's already pretty delicate and multi-faceted, don't you think? (There's no one answer... in other words...)

(Again - nothing personal - just wondering...)

Peace,

-AW

This is a case of something that happened 50+ years ago, comming back to haunt a company years later, because it is not suitable by todays standards. While I understand the enviormental impacts and concerns, a company shouldn't be punished for something that happened 50 years ago. From what I can tell the in the brief reading I did the company that created this problem has now through multiple mergers become Keyspan. As a company they had now involvement in the situation 50 years ago. They have however purposed a reasonable clean up. From what I can tell it sounds as though the people and town think more should be done. I think that if more aggressive plans are felt to be warrented the towns people better be ready to kick in some money for the project. The town didn't push hard enough to clean this up 50 years ago, they are also to blame.

Way to often companies are getting punished for enviornmental disasters and being asked to clean them up, when the disasters happened many years ago knowingly to the public. I don't believe it is correct or proper to punish a company for something they did in the pass, that has only been deemed a disaster by todays standards. They are hard lessons to learn for sure, but life is about learning and mistakes happen.

You should take the time to read the articles in the links.

http://www.citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll...WS02/711240037

The transport company paid.

and...

Keyspan is being cheap.

http://www.citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll...WS02/711180061

Where are the environmental groups?

http://www.citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll...5/-1/CITNEWS01

Who does NHDES represent in this matter?

http://www.citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll...WS02/711150062

Best results matter, not cost or inconvenience
 

What should be sought here is the best result. Total cleanup is not always the best option because it disturbs and distributes the pollutant. There have been oil spills where it was insisted that total cleanup be done and the oil company argued that environmentally it would be better to do a partial cleanup. In one area complete cleanup was done, in another partial cleanup. Guess what, the oil company was correct. The partially cleaned area recovered faster and better.

Now I don't know what the right answer is in this case. All I am saying is that the emphasis should be on the best result. If all if the residue needs to be removed, it should be. However, the partial removal may actually yield a better result. People jumping up and down and yelling about something aren't always right, often they are just most noticed.

Environmentally, what is the best way to clean this site?

Keyspan Energy was sold to National Grid of Scotland, ticker symbol NGG, a few months back, and National Grid is a way bigger company than Keyspan was.

National Grid has stock value of 45 billion dollars, and its' stock price has gone up a lot in the past five years which is an indication of a strong and very profitable company.

Most likely, when they bought Keyspan's assets, they also receive Keyspan's liabilities.....that's usually the way it works. Probably, they have more than one high deductible insurance policy to cover for big environmental problems. Also, they would have a powerfull legal defense.

What about the EPA
 

I just noticed a flaw in this Poll, How about being able to vote for the EPA to step in.... This certainly would seem to be a big enough eviornmental impact to warrent thier involvment.....

We had what sounds like the same situation here in Manchester a few years back.Right next to where Keyspan sits off Elm ST there was a big coal tar deposit that I believe has since been remediated.The tar was a byproduct of the production of propane from coal.I'm assuming this was how the Gilford deposit got there?

"I think they have already made up their minds on what they are going to do," said Wayne Gustafson, who lives with his family across the road from the site. "They aren't going to do anything. They are just going to cover it up and tell everyone everything is fine."

A few weeks ago Benavides and Juris went to Concord to meet with Gov. John Lynch. While Lynch acknowledged the town's concerns, he did not promise to act on the matter.

While pleased that the governor is aware of what is happening in Gilford, Lacroix said he has yet to see the Governor make good on his word and take action.

Selectman Gus Benavides was at a loss for words, only saying he was disappointed by the whole thing.

"I question why DES would not just go for total removal," said Benavides, pointing out that KeySpan can recover its costs from ratepayers.

http://www.citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll...318/-1/CITIZEN

One has to wonder if the members of the NHDES will share in the profits of not fully removing the contamination on Liberty Hill?!

Investigative Reporting
 

I don't know this reporter but I think they want dig up as much information as they can. A reporter who does a "good job" (your words) would verify the source or the info. Remember that a Nixon whistle blower had the name "Deep Throat" and was believed.

I do not have the information needed to make an informed answer to the poll question. I can tell you that in the end, it is US who pay for it. No matter the method we will pay. Where does Keyspan get the money it spends? From us.

KeySpan knew years ahead of reporting contamination
 

Citizen reports that KeySpan knew of contamination 5 years before it was reported.
Copy & Paste link: http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll...022/-1/CITNEWS