| Author |
 Topic  |
|
turk182
Member
88 Posts |
Posted - 06/12/2008 : 11:50:45 AM
|
I hear everyone's concern about allowing Woodwaste to move to lower Broadway, but that guy at the BOA meeting from Woodwaste pointed out that the land they want to move to is still very contaminated from the Monsanto, if they move there and develop the area does that mean they will clean up the contaminates? Even more so they want to move there with the contaminates.
It seems to me that if anyone wanted to develop that land it would have happened already. I don't get the logic no one wants to move to this property except this one company and you don't want them to,
"Your brain gets smart but your head gets dumb" |
 |
|
|
Lynda
Advanced Member
1282 Posts |
Posted - 06/12/2008 : 2:22:18 PM
|
| Good Point turk182. Does anyone know the answer to his/her question? |
|
|
|
just wondering
Senior Member
387 Posts |
Posted - 06/12/2008 : 8:13:45 PM
|
I believe they would clean up the remaining 30 acres (at a cost of close to 50 million dollars). Not sure what would be required in the way of cleanup for a waste transfer facility.....kind of like dressing up a pig no?
Interesting to note that the plans proposed by Thiebault's attorney call for the facility to be tucked behind the T, not even visible from the street or the water.....so much for all of the speculation on this board that said he wanted to dredge the river and send his material out by barge.....another scary story proved wrong. |
|
|
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
 Posted - 06/12/2008 : 10:32:17 PM
|
Nothing has been proved wrong. Thibeault does what he wants when he wants to. If he wants to use the waters, he will. He has not complied with DEP regulations all along and you think he will start now?
Even dealing with a business man like this is selling your soul. The way this man thumbs his nose to people’s suffering, and all the mayor cares about is the 3.5 million dollar check. Get it from another business. If business are dying to go there, let someone else do it. The Mayor is not giving anyone else a chance. He's only focusing on Thibeault, I wonder why?
Just like the arrogance that the veterans are getting their checks, he just doesn’t get it. Not everything in life is monetary. Some interesting reading here…..
You must be logged in to see this link.
Scroll down and see all the campaign contributions. I doubt Billy Thibeault does it out of the goodness of his heart.
|
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 06/12/2008 : 11:14:28 PM
|
Here are some local names on that campaign contribution list.
Date Name Address Amount Occupation Employer To
11/17/2005 THIBEAULT, DELLA 85-87 BOSTON STREET EVERETT, MA 02149 $500.00 INFORMATION REQUESTED 11/10/05 Barrios, Jarrett T.
03/30/2006 Thibeault, Della D. 85 Boston St # 87 Everett, MA 02149 $500.00 info requested 4/2/2006 Barrios, Jarrett T.
05/17/2002 Thibeault, William 1690 Revere Beach Parkway Everett, MA 02149 $100.00 Ranieri, Anthony
03/30/2006 Thibeault, William 85 Boston St Everett, MA 02149 $500.00 info requested 4/2/2006 Barrios, Jarrett T.
07/31/2006 THIBEAULT, WILLIAM J 85 BOSTON ST. Everett, MA 02149 $500.00 DEMOLITION COMPANY WOODWASTE OF BOSTON Nuzzo, Jr., Frank
08/08/2007 Thibeault, William J. 85 Boston St. Everett, MA 02149 $300.00 Owner Wood Waste Galluccio, Anthony D.
Here is the full list from that link:
Date Name Address Amount Occupation Employer To
11/17/2005 THIBEAULT, DELLA 85-87 BOSTON STREET EVERETT, MA 02149 $500.00 INFORMATION REQUESTED 11/10/05 Barrios, Jarrett T.
01/31/2002 Thibeault, Della 85-87 Boston St Everett, MA 02149 $500.00 bookkeeper Wood Waste Guerriero, Patrick
04/27/2005 Thibeault, Della 85-87 Boston St Everett, MA 02149 $500.00 Bookeeper Wood Waste Baddour, Steven A.
12/31/2005 Thibeault, Della D. 85-87 Boston Street Everett, MA 02149 $500.00 Letter Sent Letter Sent Reilly, Thomas F.
03/30/2006 Thibeault, Della D. 85 Boston St # 87 Everett, MA 02149 $500.00 info requested 4/2/2006 Barrios, Jarrett T.
09/23/2007 Thibeault, Della D. 85-87 Bposton St. Everett, MA 02149 $500.00 Sent Letter 9/07 DiPaola, James
01/31/2002 Thibeault, William 85-87 Boston St Everett, MA 02149 $500.00 owner Wood Waste Guerriero, Patrick
05/17/2002 Thibeault, William 1690 Revere Beach Parkway Everett, MA 02149 $100.00 Ranieri, Anthony
07/24/2006 Thibeault, William 85 Boston St Everett, MA 02149 $500.00 Healey, Kerry Murphy
08/31/2006 Thibeault, William 85 Boston St Everett, MA 02149 $500.00 Information Requested Letter Sent Hillman, Reed V.
12/30/2007 Thibeault, William 85 Boston Street Everett, MA 02149 $500.00 Real Estate Self-Employed Ferrante, Ann-Margaret
10/03/2007 Thibeault, William 85 Boston st Everett, MA 02149 $250.00 info requested info requested Cahill, Timothy
04/27/2006 Thibeault, William 85 Boston Street Everett, MA 02149 $250.00 Retired None Buonomo, John R.
03/30/2006 Thibeault, William 85 Boston St Everett, MA 02149 $500.00 info requested 4/2/2006 Barrios, Jarrett T.
04/27/2005 Thibeault, William 85 Boston St Everett, MA 02149 $500.00 Owner Wood Waste Baddour, Steven A.
06/21/2002 Thibeault, William 85-87 Boston Street Everett, MA 02149 $250.00 friendly way with Frank. No Grabauskas, Daniel A.
05/17/2004 Thibeault, William 85-87 Boston Street Everett, MA 02149 $250.00 Construction Self Motzkin, Michael
07/31/2006 THIBEAULT, WILLIAM J 85 BOSTON ST. Everett, MA 02149 $500.00 DEMOLITION COMPANY WOODWASTE OF BOSTON Nuzzo, Jr., Frank
01/17/2006 Thibeault, William J. 85 Boston Street Everett, MA 02149 $250.00 Owner Woodwaste Glodis, Guy William
02/15/2007 Thibeault, William J. 85 Boston Street Everett, MA 02149 $250.00 Owner Wood Waste Glodis, Guy William
03/07/2008 Thibeault, William J. 85 Boston Street Everett, MA 02149 $500.00 Owner Wood Waste Glodis, Guy William
12/07/2007 Thibeault, William J. 85 Boston Street Everett, MA 02149 $500.00 Owner Great Northern Site Corp. Berry, Frederick E.
09/23/2007 Thibeault, William J. 85 Boston St. Everett, MA 02149 $500.00 Sent Letter 9/07 DiPaola, James
08/08/2007 Thibeault, William J. 85 Boston St. Everett, MA 02149 $300.00 Owner Wood Waste Galluccio, Anthony D.
|
|
|
|
turk182
Member
88 Posts |
Posted - 06/12/2008 : 11:14:57 PM
|
I wasn't aware that companies were lined up to fight over that space. Can you identify another business that is dying to own it? Let the City government know who they are instead of 3.5 million maybe we can get 3 or 4 times as much by having the corporations bid against each other. My only question is why didn't Ragucci or Hanlon develop the land? Maybe because no one wants to pay to clean it up?
A campaign contribution from Rossi to Demaria of $450.00 back in 2002 WOW that's a smoking gun.
"Your brain gets smart but your head gets dumb" |
|
|
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
Posted - 06/12/2008 : 11:18:36 PM
|
| No- the smoking gun is these contributions where not out of the goodness of his heart, that's for sure. I'm sure with him being so non-compliant it was in hopes they can look the other way. I dont care how much Attorney Rossi gives his cousin. |
|
|
|
turk182
Member
88 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2008 : 09:37:39 AM
|
Tails do you seriously think that all these honorable people that are listed would sell their souls for $500.00. I don't believe that. Have you been able to identify any other companies that want to use that space?
"Your brain gets smart but your head gets dumb" |
|
|
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2008 : 09:43:48 AM
|
| Of course not, I was not referring to them. |
|
|
|
turk182
Member
88 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2008 : 09:51:20 AM
|
You might not have ment to but I think you did what does this mean from your prior post
"Scroll down and see all the campaign contributions. I doubt Billy Thibeault does it out of the goodness of his heart. "
Or how about this one
"No- the smoking gun is these contributions where not out of the goodness of his heart, that's for sure. I'm sure with him being so non-compliant it was in hopes they can look the other way"
What does look the other way mean?
Can you show me Demaria on the list I can't seem to find it?
"Your brain gets smart but your head gets dumb" |
Edited by - turk182 on 06/13/2008 10:13:24 AM |
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2008 : 11:40:39 AM
|
Letter from Newburyport.
You must be logged in to see this link.
Published: June 13, 2008 03:28 am ShareThis PrintThis
Letter: Reasons not to accede to New Ventures' request
To the editor:
I am concerned about New Ventures' latest request to increase the numbers of trucks going to Crow Lane landfill, if you can call a legal maneuver backed up with a threat of a lawsuit a request. New Ventures was previously bringing in 35 trucks and they want to increase it to 70 trucks per day. This would increase the size of the landfill and neighbors would be subjected to another summer of toxic fumes. People will not be able to enjoy using their back yards for cook outs and will have sleepless nights again. We will be back to making phone calls at 1 a.m. and having headaches, running noses and burning eyes.
The landfill is very close to a day care center, nursing home and complex for seniors. The fumes are very harmful to children and seniors, many of whom already have health issues. Some seniors and families can't afford to buy air conditioners and so have to open their windows in the summer.
Traffic safety is another important issue. In the past, the drivers of the trucks often turned right leaving Crow Lane, even though they were only allowed to take a left turn. This is another reason why I am very concerned about allowing New Ventures to haul in 70 trucks per day. It is especially bad during the summer when school is out: There will be more kids on bikes and skateboards, which will multiply this danger.
Next on my list is the fact that New Ventures never cleaned our streets to remove any toxic dust the trucks left behind. If there were any toxic dust on our streets, it would be washed down the drains in a rainstorm. Twice as many trucks will leave twice as much toxic dust on our streets!
Seventy trucks per day is going to take a toll on roads. New Ventures is not going to help repair any damages their trucks cause our road — we'll have to pay for that too.
The city must not be intimidated by New Ventures' latest demands. The city has to take a strong stand and not back down. More people need write and let the city and state know how you feel about the landfill. If we let New Ventures have its way, we have only ourselves to blame.
MARY WOLF
Newburyport |
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2008 : 5:39:35 PM
|
| Does anyone know how many different businesses Thibeault has listen from the Boston Street address? |
|
|
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2008 : 6:37:52 PM
|
Geesh, I found a few and I’m sure there is more. This is a bad move for Everett if they allow this move to happen, how long until we start seeing this but from the new site? That attorney kept stating about “DEP Rules” he was sooo full of it and we will soon see who “bought it." He's always denying everything, even with Wood Waste when you can see/smell the obvious and people in Everett and Newburyport have the very same sicknesses, sore throats, nosebleeds, headaches. I say move it right next to the mansion and if they can live with it for a year then well see.
Mr. Thibeault is further causing distress to the City of Newburyport as reported on the DEP website as follows. This guy is always trying to circumvent our environmental regulations.
Notice of Responsibility and Response Action
On July 2, 2007, the MassDEP issued a Notice of Responsibility and Notice of Response Action (NORA) to New Ventures Associates, LLC and Mr. William Thibeault (individually) directing them to undertake response actions at the Crow Lane Landfill to control and mitigate the continuing release of landfill gas from the site. The NORA requires that New Ventures and Mr. Thibeault respond in writing to the MassDEP by July 16, 2007. The NORA provides that if their response is inadequate or incomplete, or they fail to undertake the necessary response actions in accordance with the MCP, MassDEP may perform the necessary response actions and take appropriate legal action against them, including cost recovery activities. In addition, MassDEP issued notice (Notice of Intent) to New Ventures in accordance with the Financial Assurance Mechanism and the Standby Trust Agreement for the project of the MassDEP's intent to inform the Trustee of the Standby Trust that New Ventures has failed to perform closure or corrective action activities required by the MassDEP. These are the initial steps that are required for the MassDEP to conduct response actions at the landfill. In correspondence dated July 9, 2007, New Ventures requested an extension of the deadline to respond to the NORA, which MassDEP denied on July 10, 2007. New Ventures responded to the NORA and Notice of Intent on July 16, 2007.
UNITED STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATOR
In the matter of
Wood Waste of Boston, Inc.,
)
Docket No. CWA0120060090
)
Respondent
)
ORDER DENYING RESPONDENT=S MOTION TO COMPEL ATTENDANCE AND TESTIMONY
In this case, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (AEPA@ or Athe Agency@) charges that Wood Waste of Boston, Inc. (AWood Waste@), violated the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit program under the Clean Water Act (Athe Act@). 33 U.S.C. '' 1251 et seq. Specifically, EPA alleges that from September, 1999, to the date of the complaint=s issuance of November 15, 2006, Wood Waste failed to have a permit as required by Section 308 of the Act. 33 U.S.C. ' 1318. EPA also alleges that respondent discharged storm water associated with industrial activities in violation of Section 301. 33 U.S.C. 1311. For these violations, the government seeks the maximum civil penalty of $157,500.
Wood Waste denies these charges and, accordingly, a hearing has been scheduled in this matter to commence on March 13, 2007. Respondent now moves to require the Aattendance and testimony@ of certain unidentified witnesses at this hearing to determine Athe procedure and methodology@ by which the Agency calculated the proposed penalty. Mot. at 1. Specifically, Wood Waste Amoves that the Presiding Officer require the attendance and testimony of any and all U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (>EPA=) staff who participated substantively in EPA=s determination that $157,500.00 is an appropriate penalty for the violations alleged in the Complaint.@ Id. Respondent argues that A[t]he requested testimony is significantly probative as to the appropriateness of the penalty sought by Complainant,@ and that the testimony is needed Ato ascertain whether the proposed penalty is an arbitrary and capricious abuse of discretion.@ Mot. at 2 & 4. Respondent also argues that the requested testimony is needed Ato determine the weight@ apparently given by Complainant to each of the Clean Water Act=s statutory penalty factors in calculating the proposed penalty.
EPA opposes respondent=s motion. In its opposition, EPA represents that the civil penalty that it proposes in this case is the result of the Agency=s evaluation of the evidence expected to be introduced at hearing, and not (as is usually the case) the result of an EPA employee performing penalty calculations pursuant to a formula prescribed in an Agency penalty policy. Thus, it is the government=s view that Wood Waste=s request simply cannot be accommodated.
Under the circumstances of this Clean Water Act case, EPA=s position is correct. 1 Here, EPA has pled the statutory maximum penalty and whether such a penalty will be assessed (i.e., assuming that liability has been established) is to be determined through an evaluation of the record evidence alone. See 33 U.S.C. 1319(g)(3). To the extent that Wood Waste argues that such a methodology is Aarbitrary and capricious,@ this argument is rejected. Indeed, respondent=s assertion that this tribunal is illequipped
Afor translating fact patterns into penalty figures@ is off the mark. Reply at 1. That is precisely the role of this tribunal should the government establish that a violation occurred. So too is respondent=s assertion that a denial of its motion would relieve EPA of its burden of proof as to penalty. This assertion has no merit as it is undisputed that the government bears the burden of proof on this issue and further, that any penalty assessment will be based entirely upon the evidentiary case that the government establishes at hearing.
Accordingly, Wood Waste has made no showing that it is entitled to the relief that it requests and, therefore, its motion is denied.
Carl C. Charneski Administrative Law Judge
Issued: January 3, 2007 Washington, D.C.
1
Were this a case in which EPA actually applied the methodology of a penalty policy to calculate a proposed penalty, then a different result likely would obtain.
|
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2008 : 09:41:36 AM
|
From Newburyport:
You must be logged in to see this link.
City Council/landfill meeting on Wednesday
From Ron Klodenski:
Please mark your calendar for another City Council landfill meeting this coming Wednesday (6/18) at 7 pm. I understand the public hearing part of the meeting will be held first, so please be there at 7 if you wish to be heard. Because it's a public hearing, you do not need to sign up in advance to speak. Just be there and raise your hand to be recognized.
Some comments by a few city councilors who have seen the draft agreement between the city and the landfill owner seem to indicate the agreement would be totally unacceptable to those of us who have suffered from the effects of the landfill to date. In exchange for some vague promises not to sue the city, the landfill owner would get an assurance that the city would not take any action against him unless there's an immediate threat to public health and safety. (How many years would we argue in court about what "an immediate threat to public health and safety" means?)
If you didn't speak at last week's public hearing or had to leave because it ran so late, please attend Wednesday and say what's on your mind. The council must stand up for us. Signing the proposed agreement won't solve anything and will probably make things worse in the long run. |
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2008 : 7:07:02 PM
|
From the office of the OCPF:
You must be logged in to see this link.
Decorative State Seal OCPF Electronic Filing & Campaign Disclosure System
Results of Search for Contributions
Decorative State Seal
Choose a delimiter:
Displaying Records 1 through 3 of 3
Search Criteria: Last Name (of Contributor) Like '%Rossi%'; Candidate's First Name Like '%Carlo%'; Candidate's Last Name Like '%DeMaria%';
Sort Criteria:
Date Name Address Amount Occupation Employer To
02/27/2002 Rossi, Anthony 515 Broadway Everett, MA 02149 $200.00 Attorney Self-Employed DeMaria Jr., Carlo
01/28/2002 Rossi, Anthony 515 Broadway Everett, MA 02149 $250.00 Attorney Self-Employed DeMaria Jr., Carlo
01/28/2002 Rossi, Carla 20 Bonair Ave Wakefield, MA 01880 $500.00 Information requested DeMaria Jr., Carlo
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Wood Waste
